{"id":3185,"date":"2013-03-09T10:23:09","date_gmt":"2009-06-14T06:36:52","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-06-13T16:46:29","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3185","title":{"rendered":"NV: Follows Brigham City<\/em> requiring objective basis for emergency entry"},"content":{"rendered":"

Relying on Brigham City<\/a>, Nevada holds that an entry based on a domestic disturbance where the police were called by a neighbor and came and talked to the female involved through slightly opened door who said that nobody was hurt and they did not want the police inside was unreasonable. The officer had no objective evidence that anybody inside was hurt [and nobody was]. The entry produced drugs for which defendant was charged. The motion to suppress should have been granted. Hannon v. State<\/a>, 125 Nev. 142, 207 P.3d 344 (2009):<\/p>\n

To the extent that our caselaw still condones inquiring into law enforcement’s subjective motivations in the context of an emergency home entry, as other courts have done, see, e.g., U.S. v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 952 (9th Cir. 2008); U.S. v. Naiar, 451 F.3d 710, 718 (10th Cir. 2006); State v. Edwards, 183 Vt. 584, 945 A.2d 915, 918 (Vt. 2008), we abandon our previous test in favor of the standard announced in Brigham City, which clarifies “the appropriate Fourth Amendment standard governing warrantless entry by law enforcement in an emergency situation.” 547 U.S. at 402.<\/p>\n

Under that standard, a law enforcement officer’s “subjective motivation is irrelevant.” Id. at 404. Rather, the reasonableness of an emergency home entry depends on whether “‘the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the] action,'” id. (quoting Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 138, 98 S. Ct. 1717, 56 L. Ed. 2d 168 (1978) (alteration in original)), in other words, whether law enforcement had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that there was an immediate need to protect the lives or safety of themselves or others. See Snipe, 515 F.3d at 952; Najar, 451 F.3d at 718; see also U.S. v. Huffman, 461 F.3d 777, 785 (6th Cir. 2006).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3185"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3185\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}