CA10: “Static 911” call did not give officers here any reason to believe there was an exigency at the scene

A “static 911” call, once officers got to the scene, was not exigency for an entry. One door of the house was unlocked, but it was in a rural area. It was also disheveled, but there was no indication there was anybody at home at all, let alone the bare possibility that somebody inside might be in need of aid. The burglar alarm cases from sister circuits are inapposite. United States v. Martinez, 643 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2011):

The sanctity of the home is too important to be violated by the mere possibility that someone inside is in need of aid — such a “possibility” is ever-present. It is for this reason that exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement are “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Mincey, 437 U.S. at 390 (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court understood the law and properly applied it in this case.

Finally, the government claims the district court erred by relying “on its own experience rather than deferring to the officers’ experience.” Aplt. Br. at 37. The government’s argument is unpersuasive. The district court need not jettison all common sense when reviewing the evidence. It need only consider the evidence from the viewpoint of a “prudent, cautious, and trained officer[].” Najar, 451 F.3d at 719. We are satisfied the district court did so.

Because the officers lacked a reasonable basis for believing an individual inside Mr. Martinez’s home was in need of immediate aid or assistance, we agree with the district court’s determination that the warrantless search of Mr. Martinez’s home was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.