OH1: A malnourished child isn’t exigency for an infant

“The facts of this case are more akin to the situation in Fisher. While a report of a malnourished infant is certainly cause for concern, no one testified that that the infant would not survive without immediate medical intervention. Rather, the officers understood from Bell that the infant was not thriving and should be seen at the hospital per a recommendation from her physician. This was not characterized as a life-or-limb emergency risking the infant’s survival. To the contrary, Bell characterized the purpose for her presence at the apartment as needing to ‘talk to mom,’ not to take custody of the child for the purpose of seeking emergency medical care.” State v. Modreski, 2024-Ohio-1550, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 1468 (1st Dist. Apr. 24, 2024).

The officers had not seized defendant when he walked off his porch and stood between them and one asked whether he had a concealed carry permit for the gun in his pocket. This is all on bodycam video, and it was a normal conversation. United States v. Young, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74440 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 24, 2024).*

Defendant had his full and fair opportunity to litigate his search claim in state court. His complaints about the correctness of the findings of law and fact don’t matter. Sholar v. Stevens, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74434 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 24, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.