S.D.Ohio: Domestic disturbance call was exigent circumstance

Because of the “combustible nature” of domestic disturbance calls, the officer could reasonably enter the house to make an assessment of the potential threat to the caller. United States v. Lauderdale, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65674 (S.D. Ohio June 9, 2010)*:

The “risk-of-danger” exception to the requirement that a warrant be obtained before searching a home applies in this case. Officers Gross and Blackburn were responding to a peace officer assistance call made by Rogers for assistance in gathering her belongings. In their experience, peace officer assistance calls typically involve domestic disputes which are inherently unpredictable. Further, police protocol dictates that police officers responding to this type of call make a face-to-face contact with the caller to assess any potential threat to the caller.

City zoning ordinance that limited the number of undergraduate students that could live in a building did not invade privacy because there was no enforcement power in the zoning commission. Rosenberg v. City of Boston & Boston Zoning Comm’n, 18 LCR 253, 2010 Mass. LCR LEXIS 50 (Mass. Land Ct. May 25, 2010).*

The smell of Bondo and fresh paint on a vehicle with unusual travel plans was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Garcia-Aleman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65333 (E.D. Tex. June 9, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.