S.D.Fla.: 16 shot ShotSpotter alert confirmed by witnesses was exigency to enter curtilage

A ShotSpotter alert of 16 gunshots from the vicinity of defendant’s home confirmed by witnesses in a car leaving the area was justification for exigent entry onto the curtilage. “Since the addition of the omitted information does not disturb the probable cause in the warrant to search Defendants’ home, there were no material omissions, and Defendants are not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Franks or suppression of the evidence recovered from the search.” United States v. Gonzalez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224600 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 26, 2025).

“The evidence of record and the facts pleaded by Penascino show that the arrest was permitted under Pennsylvania law as the probable cause standard was met. Nothing before the Court indicates that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest. Thus, Penascino cannot show that he was falsely imprisoned. Therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.” Penascino v. Cope, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223747 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2025).*

Motion for sixth extension of time to file a motion to suppress is denied. A Franks motion was filed back in August. United States v. Hardison, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224499 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 14, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Curtilage, Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.