Officer responding to a shots fired call with the shooter wearing orange pants and a white shirt saw the likely shooter at the apartment complex [how many people wear orange pants?] and approached him. The defendant turned and walked away. The officer shouted to stop, and he kept going into an apartment. The officer was in hot pursuit and had exigent circumstances that defendant was going for the gun. United States v. Walker, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106116 (S.D. Fla. October 22, 2009)*:<\/p>\n
Applying these legal principles here, the undersigned finds that Officer Wilson and the other police officers did not violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights because of several exigent circumstances which existed at the time the officers entered his apartment. First, as a preliminary matter, the undersigned finds that the police officers had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed a felony offense, namely, aggravated assault with a firearm or another state crime, as reported by the victim. Officer Wilson, only minutes earlier, had heard his radio dispatcher advising police officers of an assault in the area of the subject apartment reported by a victim who described his assailant as a black male wearing a white shirt and orange pants who allegedly attacked him and fired at him with a firearm. Officer Wilson immediately responded to the area and found the suspect wearing a white shirt and orange pants standing outside of an apartment complex. Officer Wilson approached the suspect, later identified as defendant, who immediately turned and walked quickly away from the officer despite a verbal order to stop. Officer Wilson followed defendant, repeating his order to stop, which only resulted in defendant quickening his pace and entering the subject apartment. Officer Wilson followed defendant from only a few yards behind but could not see defendant’s hands to determine whether he still had a firearm. Believing defendant to be the suspect described by the victim, and not knowing whether defendant was still armed, Officer Wilson rightly concluded that he had probable cause to pursue defendant in both “hot pursuit” of a fleeing suspect and for the safety of himself and others possibly inside the apartment.<\/p>\n
Having probable cause to believe that defendant had committed an offense, the police officers also correctly concluded that exigent circumstances existed permitting a warrantless entry into the apartment. As stated above, exigent circumstances exist “when the inevitable delay incident to obtaining a warrant must give way to an urgent need for immediate action.” Ramos, 933 F.2d at 972 (quoting Satterfield, 743 F.2d at 844). …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Store security guards were reliable in the information they passed on to law enforcement officers, and that was reasonable suspicion for defendant\u2019s stop. United States v. Cobb, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106313 (E.D. Pa. November 12, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Knock-and-announce was properly dispensed with because of a fear for officer safety. [There was no mention of Hudson<\/a>.] United States v. Landan, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106305 (D. Mass. November 12, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading