E.D.Cal.: Gov’t’s use of emergency doctrine for entry fails

The government failed to show an emergency justification for entry without a warrant. United States v. Espinoza, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100783 (E.D. Cal. October 15, 2009):

The Court is not persuaded that either the exigency or emergency exceptions to the warrant requirement justify the officers entering Defendant’s home. Significantly, both of those exceptions require some amount of urgency, and the Government has failed to show that any such circumstances existed in this case. As Defendant argues, there were no exigent circumstances or public safety reasons giving rise to an emergency/exigent circumstance to justify entry into the house. The cases cited by the Government can be distinguished. Cf. United States v. Russell, 436 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2006) (Defendant made two calls to police for emergency assistance, he gave two different names in the calls, and he led police to believe that there was another person involved in the shooting); also cf. Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 126 S. Ct. 1943, 164 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2006) (Officers observed an altercation inside the house and had a reasonable basis for believing both an injured person may need help and that the violence they observed was just beginning and needed to be stopped). Under similar circumstances to the instant case, the Ninth Circuit found police warrantless entry into a tent was illegal. See United States v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 1993). Defendant’s home deserves more protection.

In addition, the Declaration of Officer Haug that Defendant was asked if anyone else was in the house before police entered is not credible.

Even though a state statute may impose a higher probable cause standard, the Fourth Amendment still governs in a § 1983 case on the level of PC. Holder v. Town of Sandown, 585 F.3d 500 (1st Cir. 2009).

Police, probation, and parole officers could conduct a protective sweep based on the information they had about the premises. United States v. King, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100460 (E.D. Wis. April 27, 2009).*

Reasonable suspicion found from being in a high crime area at 3:30 am dressed in gang colors and suspicion of being involved in a stolen vehicle. United States v. Santio, 351 Fed. Appx. 324 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.