Cal.2: Officers didn’t need to periodically reassess exigency

Exigency here did not need to be periodically reassessed. “Once inside, police were not required to interrupt their efforts to seek a warrant. Officers on the scene must be able to devote their full attention to the threat they face. The Fourth Amendment did not require them periodically to reassess whether the exigency persisted throughout the standoff. … Exigencies can persist while police pursue time-consuming courses of action. …” People v. Valencia, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 143 (2d Dist. Mar. 10, 2026).

“Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Houston, a reasonable officer would have recognized that using such intrusive and aggressive means to detain Houston and unreasonably prolonging her detention was unlawful and violated her clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202.” Houston v. Reeves, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 7002 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2026).*

Officers had probable cause that defendant has slapped a woman while holding a gun on her. “And by the time officers searched Woods’s car, there was a fair probability that they would find the gun there. The officers knew from the victim’s and her daughter’s statements that the gun was last seen in Woods’s possession. But they didn’t see the gun on Woods’s person, near the victim or her daughter, or in any of the complex’s parking lots. Nor did they find the gun after conducting a canine search and patting down Woods. That left the one place the police knew Woods had just been: his car.” United States v. Woods, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 7023 (6th Cir. Mar. 10, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Emergency / exigency, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.