This pro se plaintiff was the subject of a sexual assault investigation that led to officers warrantlessly entering and seizing his home for 12½ hours before getting a warrant. Summary judgment was granted the officers. Exigent circumstances didn’t justify the warrantless entry. For a risk of destruction of evidence, it has to be in “real time.” Also, the officer’s delays in acting belied exigency. Alexander v. City of Syracuse, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6007 (2d Cir. Mar. 14, 2025):*
As we explain more fully below, the district court erred when it granted summary judgment for Detective Gilhooley in connection with Alexander’s Fourth Amendment claim based on the initial search and on the ensuing prolonged seizure and further search of Alexander’s home. In addition, because the probable cause to arrest Alexander for burglary depended on the validity of the seizure of his home, the district court erred in granting Detective Gilhooley summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment and New York claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution based on the burglary charge. By extension, due to the City’s potential vicarious liability, the district court erred in granting the City summary judgment on the state law claims arising from the burglary arrest and prosecution. Finally, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence in the record to award the City or County summary judgment on Alexander’s state law false imprisonment claims based on his over-detention. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments for all defendants.
. . .
The exigent circumstances exception applies when “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011). Intended for “now or never” situations, the exception authorizes warrantless entries to, for example, “render emergency assistance to an injured occupant,” “protect an occupant from imminent injury,” “prevent the imminent destruction of evidence,” or “prevent a suspect’s escape” when there is “no time to secure a warrant.” Lange v. California, 594 U.S. 295, 301-02 (2021); see also United States v. Caraballo, 831 F.3d 95, 102 (2d Cir. 2016). To benefit from the exception, an officer must have probable cause to believe an exigency exists. “The core question is whether the facts, as they appeared at the moment of entry, would lead a reasonable, experienced officer, to believe that there was an urgent need to render aid or to take action” without securing a warrant. Chamberlain Estate of Chamberlain v. City of White Plains, 960 F.3d 100, 106 (2d Cir. 2020).
Because this exception must be “jealously and carefully drawn,” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455 (1971), officers “bear a heavy burden” to show that an exigency justified a warrantless entry. Chamberlain, 960 F.3d at 106. Additionally, any warrantless searches and seizures must be “strictly circumscribed” to ameliorate the exigency at issue. Id. In other words, once the exigency ends, any additional warrantless search or seizure “is no longer permissible.” Id. at 107; see also United States v. Cosme, 796 F.3d 226, 235 (2d Cir. 2015) (noting the exigent circumstances exception “does not immunize … lengthy, warrantless seizure[s]”).
The district court concluded that no reasonable jury could find for Alexander on the claim that Detective Gilhooley violated the Fourth Amendment when he entered Alexander’s home and searched it without a warrant. See Alexander II, 573 F. Supp. 3d at 731. This was error for two reasons. First and foremost, there is no evidence that Detective Gilhooley had any indication that evidence destruction was occurring in real time as he stood at the threshold before forcing his way in. Second, the passage of time between L.M.’s initial report at the hospital and Detective Gilhooley’s warrantless entry—almost three hours—undermines any suggestion that there wasn’t sufficient time to secure a warrant. In light of these considerations, neither the severity of the crime under investigation nor the existence of probable cause to believe he would find evidence of a crime on the premises gave rise to exigent circumstances supporting Detective Gilhooley’s warrantless entry into Alexander’s home.
- Real Time Evidence Destruction
If an officer invokes the exigent circumstances exception to justify a warrantless entry to search for and preserve evidence, the bar is high. The threatened destruction of evidence must be “imminent.” Lange, 594 U.S. at 301. For that reason, the exigent circumstances exception typically applies when an officer has reason to believe evidence inside a private dwelling is being destroyed or removed in real time. …
. . .
- Delayed Action
In addition, the time lapse between L.M.’s interview with officers at the hospital and Detective Gilhooley’s warrantless entry belies the suggestion that there was no time to get a warrant. The exigent circumstances exception applies in “situations presenting a ‘compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.'” Lange, 594 U.S. at 301 (emphasis added) (quoting Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 149 (2013)). Notably, approximately three hours passed between Detective Lund’s interviews at the hospital and Detective Gilhooley’s warrantless entry. …
B. The Prolonged Seizure of Alexander’s Home and Further Search
Likewise, the district court erred when it granted summary judgment on Alexander’s § 1983 claim based on the lengthy seizure of his home. Even if a jury concluded that exigent circumstances justified Detective Gilhooley’s initial entry and search, a jury could find facts supporting the conclusion that Detective Gilhooley’s subsequent prolonged seizure of the house, and the continuing warrantless search during that time, was unreasonable.
