N.D.Iowa: Govt’s exigency claim to enter defendant’s garage is rejected

“To the extent defendants assert that the warrantless entry was necessary to continue a purported temporary detention of Wheelock to further their investigation, that is not a recognized exigency or exception to justify a warrantless entry into a home or its curtilage. Indeed, the Supreme Court has examined an investigation under similar circumstances and found no justification for a warrantless home entry. In Welsh, a witness observed a car changing speeds and veering from side to side before swerving off the road and coming to a stop in an open field. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 742, 104 S. Ct. 2091, 80 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1984).” Wheelock v. Nitzschke, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227745 (N.D. Iowa Dec. 17, 2024).

“When arresting the fleeing Ms. Dunbar at the threshold of a known drug house, law enforcement observed individuals inside through the glass storm door. The known presence of these individuals, along with the preceding facts, gives rise to a reasonable belief that dangerous individuals may lurk within. See, e.g., Jones, 667 F.3d at 485 (upholding a protective sweep given the ‘presence of … seven vehicles [parked on the premises] coupled with … prior surveillance of known meth users patronizing the … residence’) …” United States v. Bradley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227063 (S.D. W.Va. Dec. 16, 2024).*

Defendant was a passenger in a car, and officers had a warrant for his arrest. He didn’t have standing to challenge search of the car, but he did have standing to challenge the stop. And it was reasonable, then a search warrant was issued for the vehicle on probable cause. United States v. McDowell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227744 (N.D. Iowa Dec. 17, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, Emergency / exigency, Protective sweep, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.