E.D.Mo.: Search for shell casings in curtilage exceeded community caretaking function entry

A shotspotter alert brought the police to this house, and the police went around looking for signs of anyone that might be injured. Within 20 seconds it was apparent there wasn’t, but then they looked for spent shell casings in the dark in the grass. That was beyond the initial call and community caretaking function. The reference to shell casings in the affidavit didn’t mention this intensive search, and implied plain view. That was misleading. The motion to suppress should be granted. United States v. Davis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 270386 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 12, 2025) (R&R).

This affidavit was [clearly] sufficient. “Nevertheless, even if an affidavit contains deficiencies, where ‘the existence of probable cause presents a close question on which reasonable minds could differ—or even that probable cause was in fact lacking—suppression would nonetheless be unwarranted under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.’” Torres-Carmona v. State, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 305 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 14, 2026).*

This was a felony arrest, and a warrant isn’t required as long as there’s probable cause. Here, there was plenty. United States v. Ceasar, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6691 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 13, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Community caretaking function, Curtilage. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.