On a domestic battery call, when the police arrived one person was outside, having run out yelling \u201cpsycho\u201d and the other was standing in the window of a bedroom. Police entry into the apartment was not justified by exigency because there was nothing to break up. The police have a heavy burden to justify an exigent entry, but they have great latitude (quoting cases, apparently unconcerned with the apparent contradiction). United States v. Espinoza, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169771 (D.S.D. Nov. 24, 2015).<\/p>\n
The drivers of two cars talking on a McDonald\u2019s parking lot was not reasonable suspicion, no matter how you looked at it, and the suppression order is affirmed. While the passengers can\u2019t claim standing in the car, they can of the detention under Brendlin. Commonwealth v. Shabezz<\/a>, 2015 PA Super 266, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS 833 (Dec. 21, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On a domestic battery call, when the police arrived one person was outside, having run out yelling \u201cpsycho\u201d and the other was standing in the window of a bedroom. Police entry into the apartment was not justified by exigency because … Continue reading