Arresting defendant outside his home, handcuffing, and neutralizing him as a threat dissipated the exigency for any entry of the home. Hicks v. State, 287 Ga. App. 105, 650 S.E.2d 767 (2007):<\/p>\n
This finding of exigency ignores the uncontroverted evidence that before the second search began, police had taken Hicks outside his residence, handcuffed him, and placed an armed officer as a continuous watch over him. Indeed, in light of these security measures taken by police, the officer who watched over Hicks testified: “After he was handcuffed[,] he was not a threat.” The officer stated further that “at the time [police] made the decision to continue part two of the search[, Hicks] was not a threat,” since he was handcuffed, had no weapon, was under continuous watch, was outside the house, and presented no danger. See id.<\/em> (no exigent circumstances where one of the officers “explicitly testified that there was no reason to believe that anybody was in danger”) (punctuation omitted). <\/p>\n
The handcuffing of a weaponless Hicks and the police’s placement of him outside the house under the continuous watchful eye of an armed officer removed any exigent circumstances involving danger to the officers or the public, for Hicks could no longer access any weapons inside the home. Indeed, we have previously held that handcuffing a car’s driver and securing his keys “dispelled the exigent circumstances,” McKinney v. State,<\/em> as there was “no earthly way” the driver could present a danger of accessing contraband or weapons in the car. Hardwick v. State.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Consent to search a car did not include dismantling the glove compartment by removing the screws, reaffirming State v. Johnson<\/em>, 116 Nev. 78, 993 P.2d 44 (2000). State v. Ruscetta, 123 Nev. Adv. Rep. 32, 163 P.3d 451 (2007).<\/p>\n
Summary judgment denied for officers in shooting death case during raid. The defendants were using the wrong standard of review; it is what their opponent’s case shows. Wells v. City of Dayton, 495 F. Supp. 2d 797 (S.D. Ohio 2006):<\/p>\n
Above, this Court has concluded that, construing the evidence in the manner most favorable to Plaintiffs, Wells did not present a risk of harm to either officer or to anyone else. His hands were empty and were not in his pockets. He did not possess a weapon, nor did he approach Cornwell in a threatening manner or otherwise. He made no threatening gestures, and did not say anything which could have caused Cornwell to fear for his or anyone else’s safety. Based upon the evidence before the Court, the jury could find that Cornwell moved into the doorway after McCall had pushed the door open and instinctively shot the first individual he saw, even though that individual was unarmed and presented no risk of harm to anyone. Moreover, Cornwell fired those shots without affording the individual any opportunity of surrendering.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading