The government didn’t meet its burden of showing the emergency aid exception applied where all the purported victims were accounted for and outside the apartment they wanted to search. The protective sweep doctrine as an alternative doesn’t apply here because that requires the police be on the premises lawfully in the first place. United States v. Turner, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59923 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 9, 2018):
Even if the undersigned could conclude that the first hurdle was jumped [a reasonable belief that someone is seriously injured and in need of immediate aid], the undersigned would also have to conclude that officers possessed a reasonable belief that a seriously-injured individual was located inside Defendant Turner’s apartment. Thus, assuming arguendo that officers reasonably believed that an individual was seriously injured as a result of the altercation, the undersigned turns to examine the evidence as it relates to whether officers possessed a reasonable belief that such an individual was located inside the apartment. Importantly, there is no evidence to indicate that any violent activity occurred inside the apartment; instead, the evidence points directly otherwise. First, the evidence from the 911 call indicates that two men were involved in an altercation; that one of the men shot the other; and that the shooter picked up the gun and ran. This evidence supports the conclusion that the caller saw the altercation outside of the apartment. Second, the physical evidence at the scene indicates that the altercation occurred outside. Indeed, outside of the apartment, there was pine straw strewn about and shell casings lying on the ground. There was no evidence of forced entry into the apartment, or bullet holes riddling the exterior walls. Finally, officers did not report hearing a commotion or cries for help from inside the apartment. In fact, there is no evidence that any noise of any kind was heard by officers as they approached the apartment door. Therefore, the undersigned cannot conclude that, under these circumstances, officers held a reasonable belief that a seriously-injured individual was located inside Defendant Turner’s apartment.
In addition to the lack of facts supporting a reasonable belief that a seriously-injured individual was inside Defendant Turner’s apartment, the undersigned would also note that there were no indicia of an urgent, ongoing emergency when officers arrived at the scene. While 911 calls are undoubtedly a reliable source to alert officers that an emergency situation is transpiring, the 911 caller here indicated that the disturbance had abated, for all intents and purposes, when the shooter fled the scene with his posse in a vehicle. There were no reports of continued gun shots or an ongoing altercation from other callers. There were no reports that the potential shooter or any of the individuals with him had returned to the scene to exact more mayhem. When officers arrived, both Defendant Turner and Ms. Farris were outside of the apartment and, while a bit frantic in their communication of information, they were able to clearly relay to officers the events that had transpired. Thus, to the extent indicia of an urgent, ongoing emergency is required in order to conclude that the emergency-aid exception applies, those signs are absent, in this case. As such, the undersigned would be strained to conclude that the lack of emergency, particularly considered in combination with the lack of evidence suggesting that anyone was seriously injured inside the apartment, warrants application of the emergency-aid exception.
To be sure, preserving life is of the utmost importance when officers respond to a scene that indicates an individual is in need of emergency aid. In those situations, the Fourth Amendment must give way and allow officers to enter a home in order to provide immediate assistance. However, the need to provide emergency aid is an exception to the warrant requirement, and the Government must meet its burden of showing that officers had a reasonable belief that a seriously-injured individual inside a dwelling is in need of emergency aid in order to justify a warrantless entry. The undersigned believes that such a reasonable belief is not formed merely from a 911 call reporting shots fired, and from reports that something—not necessarily even a scuffle—began inside an apartment without further indication that violence actually occurred inside the apartment. This is particularly so when all potential victims are accounted for outside of the apartment. To hold otherwise would give much liberty to the police, under the guise of the undeniably sympathetic search for possible victims of violent behavior, to enter residences without a warrant, and would erode the narrowly-constructed emergency-aid exception. With that concern in mind, the undersigned concludes that the Government has failed to meet its burden of showing that the emergency-aid exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applies.
by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer and
Search and seizure law consultant
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams
v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold,
J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws,
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that
bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater
than it is today."
— Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
property."
—Entick
v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have
frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And
so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his
case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth
Amendment."
—United
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman
v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth
Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to
protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United
States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted
intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by
government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose
it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United
States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want /
But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came
for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration
camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
---Pepé Le Pew
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers,
is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which
reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that
those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being
judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting
out crime."
—Johnson
v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)