Exigency ceased to exist on defendant’s arrest, despite the fact it was initiated by a 911 call. Moreover, he expressly refused consent. United States v. Davis, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1224 (N.D. Ill. January 8, 2008):<\/p>\n
In this case, any emergency created by Cupito’s 911 call ended when the deputies arrived on the scene to find her safely outside Davis’s house. According to their testimony, the deputies made the decision to arrest Davis before they requested his identification. If there was an exigency that Davis would harm the officers, retrieve a weapon, flee, or destroy evidence, it was created when the officers requested and consented to Davis reentering his home to retrieve his identification. This police manufactured exigency did not justify entry into the home.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, even if there was an exigency that was not created by the deputies, the exigency would have ended after they handcuffed Davis and would not justify the deputies remaining in his home. See Tierney v. Davidson<\/em>, 133 F.3d 189, 197-98 (2d Cir. 1998) (“As to what may be done by the police or other public authorities once they are inside the premises, this must be assessed upon a case-by-case basis, taking into account the type of emergency which appeared to be present … The officer’s post-entry conduct must be carefully limited to achieving the objective which justified the entry-the officer may do no more than is reasonably necessary to ascertain whether someone is in need of assistance and to provide that assistance.”). Because there was no exigency, the only other way the Government may justify the deputies’ entry is by consent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Plaintiff lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in an open storage room where his stuff was in open boxes at his father’s house where he did not live or even stay as a guest. Warner v. McCunney, 259 Fed. Appx. 476 (3d Cir. 2008)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n
The officer did not exceed defendant’s scope of consent when, touching the molding on the vehicle, it popped off. When that happened, he could look further. United States v. Gonzalez<\/a>, 512 F.3d 285, 2008 FED App. 0011P (6th Cir. 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading