TX6: Officer’s testimony failed to show any real exigency for warrantless entry of meth lab

While there likely was probable cause, the officer’s testimony didn’t sufficiently show exigency to dispense with a search warrant. Burton v. State, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2491 (Tex. App.—Texarkana April 5, 2011):

Considering the evidence with McNairy’s suggested factors, we find there was evidence of some degree of urgency (first factor) and of some danger to the officers and others in the immediate vicinity (third factor); but little or no evidence, other than Proctor’s broad assertion that evidence could be destroyed, that evidence could soon be removed or destroyed, or that suspects knew that law enforcement officers were close by and investigating (second, fourth, and fifth factors).

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and the license plate did not match it. Impounding the vehicle was lawful. The serial numbers of two firearms in the trunk were run and one was found stolen. The inventory was valid. Commonwealth v. Lagenella, 2011 PA Super 68, 17 A.3d 1257 (2011),* rev’d Commonwealth v. Lagenella, 2013 Pa. LEXIS 3250 (December 27, 2013) posted here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.