NY Suffolk Co.: Entry under Extreme Risk Protection Order statute for potential suicide was exigent

“The Court finds that the search conducted pursuant to the E[xtreme] R[isk] P[rotection] O[rder] statute was reasonable. P.O. Keenan provided sworn testimony as to the basis for his belief that defendant was expressing suicidal ideations (defendant’s text messages), and recounted defendant’s mother’s corroborating statements that her son was very depressed, that it (presumably his suicide) was ‘going to happen today,’ and that he had ‘been to CPEP before for evaluation because she believed he would hurt himself.’ Defendant’s text, that he had a gun with him in the event anyone called the police, as well as the firearms that were turned over to the police by Mrs. L., only added to the exigencies of the situation.” People v. R.L., 2023 NY Slip Op 51112(U), 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 9400 (Suffolk Co. Oct. 17, 2023).

Defendant’s erratic driving justified his stop. United States v. Wynn, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188125 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 25, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187031 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 18, 2023).*

Defendant’s four Franks challenges to the affidavit fail. Three statements gave “reasonably accurate impression[s]” of the information, and weren’t really false. The fourth was negligent at worst. Still, there was probable cause without them. United States v. Bryant, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 27839 (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.