ND: Warrantless entry into garage to investigate driving on a suspended license unreasonable

Officers had probable cause to believe defendant was driving on a suspended DL, and they were parked outside his house and watched him drive into his garage. There was no exigency for the police entry into his garage to arrest him on that misdemeanor offense. “The facts presented to the district court do not establish exigent circumstances relating to dissipation or destruction of evidence. Moreover, the record is void of any evidence Fuglesten presented an imminent harm of violence or escape from the home. Fuglesten’s interaction with the officers was non-threatening. The record does not show that law enforcement lacked time to secure a warrant.” State v. Fuglesten, 2024 ND 74, 2024 N.D. LEXIS 69 (Apr. 19, 2024).

Defendant was a suspect in the theft of over 50 firearms, most of which had not been recovered. “For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the protective detention of Defendant Johnston and Studeman was justified under the totality of the circumstances and was no longer than necessary to protect the officers from harm and complete Defendant Hutchins’ arrest.” It was custodian. Some questions fall within the public safety exception and aren’t suppressed, some don’t and are. United States v. Hutchins, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73550 (E.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2024).*

Defendant’s 2255 repackaged the Fourth Amendment arguments he lost on appeal. Dismissed. James v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74972 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 2, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Custody, Emergency / exigency, Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.