CA5: Exigency is measured objectively, not subjectively

“Borden argues the officers’ actions indicate they did not actually think a medical emergency existed, but their subjective beliefs are irrelevant. See Toussaint, 838 F.3d at 509. Given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable view of the evidence supports the district court’s conclusion that exigent circumstances — a medical emergency or overdose — existed.” United States v. Borden, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14821 (5th Cir. June 18, 2024).

“[T]he Court finds that the affidavit supports the magistrate’s probable cause determination and that the resulting warrant is not defective. Because the Court concludes that Det. Boner’s qualified statements in the affidavit are accurate, and that any unqualified or inaccurate statements are not necessary for the probable cause finding, the Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing.” United States v. White, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107176 (S.D. W. Va. June 17, 2024).*

The district court didn’t decide part of the claim here that the frisk violated the Fourth Amendment, and the case is remanded for that. Efunnuga v. Farley, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14732 (3d Cir. June 18, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.