E.D.Mich.: Missing 14 yo cell phone pinging at def’s house was exigency for entry to find her

There was exigency for entry into defendant’s home when a missing autistic 14 year old’s cell phone was pinging at defendant’s address and there was no answer to the phone. Officers don’t have to wait for the exigency to get worse before acting. United States v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132833 (E.D. Mich. June 15, 2026):

To determine whether there were sufficient exigent circumstances to excuse the officers’ warrantless entry into Smith’s house, the Court must consider the specific information that was available to the officers at the time of entry. In this case, the Taylor police officers were dispatched to Smith’s home after MV2’s mother called and reported that her 14-year-old daughter went missing, along with her blanket, in the middle of the night and that her cell phone was pinging at a strange home that the mother did not know. MV2’s mother relayed to the officers that her daughter has a degree of autism and had not taken her medication the night before. The officers confirmed that the child’s cell phone was still pinging at the Joan Street residence, strongly suggesting the MV2 was inside the house. The officers announced their presence and loudly knocked repeatedly on the front door, rang the doorbell, and knocked on the windows, but no one responded. They also observed a truck in the home’s driveway, which made it appear likely that someone was home. Cpl. Denlar looked through a broken slat in the blinds behind the front door’s window and saw a frightened-looking girl matching MV2’s description. He described her as “terrified.” She was frozen in place and not coming to the door. He therefore had an objectively reasonable basis to open the unlocked door and enter the home to render aid to the child. And the evidence in support of this objectively reasonable basis for entering the home increased when MV2 emerged from the house scared, upset, and tearfully reporting that her friend was still inside the house. She said she didn’t want to leave without her friend, MV1, who was sitting on the living room couch.

Considering the totality of the circumstances and all of the information known to the officers at the time they entered Smith’s home, the Court finds that the officers’ warrantless entry was justified by the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment. Numerous courts reached the same conclusion on similar facts. See, e.g., United States v. Clayton, No. 18-524, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98639, 2020 WL 3034826, at *5 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2020) (collecting cases holding that “the potential sexual exploitation of a minor is an exigent circumstance.”); United States v. Shingles, No. 3:15-CR-45-J-34MCR, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136195, 2015 WL 5895457, at *14 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2015) (collecting cases that the potential need to assist a minor at risk for sexual exploitation provides an additional exigency to enter a dwelling); see also Hunsberger v. Wood, 570 F.3d 546, 555 (4th Cir. 2009) (“The fact that the girl was not answering her cellphone suggested the possibility that she was hurt or otherwise in need of assistance. When a child goes missing, time is of the essence.”). The exigent circumstances exception “applies regardless of whether the minor’s involvement is involuntary[] or voluntary.” Clayton, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98639, 2020 WL 3034826, at *5 (quoting United States v. King, 560 F. Supp. 2d 906, 916 (N.D. Cal. 2008)). “A minor’s apparent consent to being the victim of a sex crime does not negate the necessity of an urgent response by law enforcement.” Id.