CT: Police objectively saw an emergency to enter defendant’s home because of a burglary and exigency

A burglar was hiding in the house of others he had no connection to, and the police could not get them to respond to their calls. The police could consider the occupants at risk of harm. When the police came in, they found drugs and drug paraphernalia and arrested the owner. State v. Fausel, 295 Conn. 785, 993 A.2d 455 (2010):

It therefore is of no moment that the police officers in the present case did not encounter an emergency when they entered the residence. They were objectively reasonable in believing that an emergency situation existed within the residence. The Appellate Court thus improperly concluded that “[a] mere concern that someone might be inside and might be in need of immediate assistance does not warrant police intrusion into a private dwelling under the emergency doctrine.” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Fausel, supra, 109 Conn. App. 830. That conclusion does not comport with the objectively reasonable standard as applied in this state.

The trial court’s findings that the person who made the down payment and mortgage payments on a house that was burned by arson had apparent authority to consent were supported by the evidence. Defendant never objected to her entering after the fire and looking around. Orr v. State, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3244 (Tex. App. — Ft. Worth February 18, 2010).*

SCOTUS GVR’d this case after Gant. On remand, the court finds the search was justified under the automobile exception instead of search incident because there was probable cause. United States v. Grooms, 602 F.3d 939 (8th Cir. 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.