W.D.Pa.: 4A doesn’t require closer questioning of one claiming a serious emergency that proved to be false

Officers responded to a 911 call that six shotgun toting men broke into a house. They talked to the caller at the scene. The front door was open. They knocked and announced and entered. Doing a protective sweep of the premises, they found two people sitting on a bed upstairs talking, with no weapons. Meth was in plain view. They left and secured a search warrant for the meth. The entry was based on a reasonable belief and was valid. Also, it was justified as a protective sweep. United States v. France, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168137 (W.D.Pa. Sept. 30, 2019):

The Court also rejects France’s argument that the officers should have spent more time questioning Huellen before they entered the residence. Police officers are not required to conduct a mini-psychiatric exam of a complaining witness they encounter who alleges a middle-of-the-night armed home invasion. Some situations require that the responding officers act quickly. This is especially true when the circumstances—view objectively—suggest that there is an ongoing dangerous emergency. France would have officers responding to the scene of a reported home invasion—where up to six (6) individuals were armed with shotguns—stop and thoroughly interrogate the witness, inspecting the minutia of his report and dissecting his demeanor. That is not what the Constitution requires in these specific circumstances.

For the above reasons, the Court concludes that the Scott Township police officers who responded to France’s home reasonably believed that there was an ongoing emergency inside the residence that posed a genuine and imminent threat to human life. Their warrantless entry into France’s residence, then, fully comported with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.