IN: Battery without a weapon was not an exigent circumstance justifying entry into defendant’s home

Battery by punching is not the type of exigent circumstance that justifies a warrantless entry into defendant’s house. There was no weapon involved. People v. Davis, 398 Ill. App. 3d 940, 338 Ill. Dec. 207, 924 N.E.2d 67 (2010)*:

The offense for which Willer sought to arrest defendant–the battery of Harrison–certainly involved a form of violence in that defendant allegedly punched Harrison. Nothing in the record indicates, however, that this offense was particularly grave; there was no evidence that as a result of the alleged battery Harrison suffered any sort of injury, sought medical treatment, or was in any way hindered in performing her normal activities. In addition, the police had no reason to believe that defendant was armed or otherwise posed a threat to the police or others; no evidence was presented that the police suspected defendant was armed, that a weapon was involved in the battery of Harrison, or that the police knew whether defendant had a particularly violent history. Moreover, no evidence was presented indicating that defendant was likely to flee unless he was swiftly apprehended. The State presented no evidence that defendant knew or was likely to be aware that Harrison had called the police and that the police were on the way to his apartment.

Defendants’ stop was based on his license plate light being out, and he ultimately consented to a patdown of his person which was valid. Harper v. State, 2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 330 (March 1, 2010).*

Defendant’s lawful stop and subsequent consent were valid. United States v. Grey, 365 Fed. Appx. 711 (8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*