CA5: Essentially, hostages = exigent circumstances

Officers had exigent circumstances for an entry. [With all the laboring to find justification, the fact of “hostages” one would think would be enough.] Also, exigent circumstances were not manufactured. United States v. Flores-Castaneda, 384 Fed. Appx. 364 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished):*

In this case, agents testified that (1) a cell phone associated with the alien smugglers was inside the residence, (2) alien smugglers generally employ guns in their trade; (3) after the agents knocked on the door, they heard movement inside but Flores-Castaneda did not open the door for approximately two minutes, which seemed long to the officers; and (4) a man inside the residence spotted the agents, turned, and ran back into the interior of the house despite the agent’s request for the man to return to the door. The agent who entered the house believed that the man was likely running to get a gun. The district court credited this testimony and found that the officers and hostages were in imminent danger, which danger justified the warrantless entry. This finding is not clearly erroneous.

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment case was objectively frivolous after plaintiff’s deposition, and he was responsible for defendant’s attorney’s fees. The case is remanded for consideration of whether fees are awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and whether plaintiff’s counsel is also responsible for them. Santhuff v. Seitz, 385 Fed. Appx. 939 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*