CA8: The facts before the officers showed exigency to enter the house on a domestic call

The officers had a reasonable basis for entering defendant’s house without a warrant. “The officers were dispatched to the scene of a domestic disturbance. The first responding officer observed a child in an upstairs window acting excitedly and gesturing at him. LaFrancois exited the residence and closed the door behind her to speak to the officers. Although LaFrancois said everything was okay, the officers observed LaFrancois had visible injuries in the form of red marks on her face and neck and she was acting emotionally and unstable. LaFrancois directed the officers to not tell Sanders that her daughter had called for help. LaFrancois was so adamant about keeping the officers outside and away from any other witnesses or evidence that might be inside the house that she volunteered to get Sanders and bring him outside. When the officers heard crying coming from inside the house, they decided to enter to provide emergency assistance to anyone who might have been injured and to protect the children, who they knew were inside, from imminent injury.” United States v. Sanders, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 21065 (8th Cir. July 16, 2021).

Pre-Caniglia community caretaking function entry was permitted in this circuit, so plaintiff does not prevail because of qualified immunity. Graham v. Barnette, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 21066 (8th Cir. July 16, 2021), on remand from 2021 U.S. LEXIS 2982 (U.S. June 7, 2021), in light of Caniglia.

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.