A hypothetical possibility defendant might have had a gun in the house is not an exigent circumstance. United States v. Risner, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102170 (N.D. Ind. December 17, 2008):<\/p>\n
No exigent circumstances justified the officers’ entry into the residence. The government notes that Mr. Risner was known to have a firearm and could have begun firing at those outside the residence; Mr. Risner was known to drive while intoxicated in the past, was known to be intoxicated, and so might have taken to the road. It’s true that nothing absolutely prevented these possibilities, but they were no more than hypothetical possibilities, not an apparent urgency that justified making what would have been an unreasonable search for Mr. Risner under other circumstances. There was no risk of destruction of evidence; there was no need (as distinguished from an outside chance) to protect life or prevent serious injury. Compare United States v. Dukes, 2008 WL 56017 (N.D. Ind. 2008). Ms. Dean didn’t tell Deputy Dulin that she needed to get back into the house because she had no place else to go. Compare United States v. Henderson, 536 F.3d 776, 785 (7th Cir. 2008).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant’s failure to object to the Magistrate’s R&R was a waiver except for plain error review, and, on Anders review, there was no plain error. On the record, the search was plainly by consent. United States v. Macias, 306 Fed. Appx. 409 (10th Cir. 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading