CA8: Exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry into Airbnb in sex trafficking investigation

Officers had exigent circumstances for an entry into an Airbnb that was being used for sex trafficking a minor when the targets were constantly on the move from place to place. The FBI was on defendant’s tail with the minor, and he was moving from Airbnb to Airbnb under pseudonyms. They entered one Airbnb without a warrant when the landlord went in first, but didn’t find them. When they finally found defendant and the minor, entry without a warrant was reasonable. United States v. Black, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4294 (8th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025):

The Government argues that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless searches of the Airbnbs. “Exigent circumstances include threats to an individual’s life, a suspect’s imminent escape, the imminent destruction of evidence, or situations where there is a compelling need for official action and there is no time to secure a warrant.” Smith v. Kansas City, Mo. Police Dep’t, 586 F.3d 576, 580 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether exigent circumstances existed is an objective inquiry “focusing on what a reasonable, experienced police officer would believe.” United States v. Quarterman, 877 F.3d 794, 797 (8th Cir. 2017). We review a district court’s conclusion that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry de novo, “accepting the underlying factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Roberts, 824 F.3d 1145, 1146 (8th Cir. 2016).

The FBI agents had objectively reasonable bases for presuming that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of the Keokuk Airbnb. A.W. was a minor girl whom the FBI believed to be in the company of a man who had a history of sexual interest in minors, who collected pornographic images of minors, and who provided drugs to minors. Given this background, combined with the fact the bathroom door was locked, the agents reasonably feared that A.W. might have been unresponsive in the bathroom and in need of immediate medical attention. Concerns about risk of injury are especially acute when the potential victim is a minor subject to sexual exploitation. See United States v. Gilliam, 842 F.3d 801, 804 (2d Cir. 2016). The possible “threats” to A.W.’s “life … [and] compelling need for official action” in a timely manner constituted exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry into the Keokuk Airbnb. See Smith, 586 F.3d at 580.

Exigent circumstances also justified the warrantless search of the Minneapolis Airbnb. By the time of the search, the FBI had learned that A.W. fled from the Keokuk Airbnb to avoid detection. The FBI had heard a witness report that Black stated that he needed to get A.W. “out of town because the feds are looking for her.” Black also had multiple concurrent Airbnb bookings under a pseudonym. It was apparent that Black and A.W. were attempting to avoid detection by the FBI. Before knocking on the door of the Minneapolis Airbnb, the FBI had already positively identified Black as the male occupant of the property, and the girl accompanying him matched A.W.’s description. The warrantless entry was justified to prevent Black and A.W. from fleeing or destroying evidence. See Smith, 586 F.3d at 580. Given the exigent circumstances, the FBI’s warrantless searches did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Black’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from those searches.