Two defendants had standing in a camper. The officers\u2019 warrantless entry into it was without exigency because the exigency, if it existed, passed. It was based on a suspected overdose, but the officer admitted he had only a couple of minutes but waited 30 minutes until an ambulance arrived. United States v. Mullins, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136051 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 13, 2019):
\n<\/p>\n
Given the circumstances, the time to force entry without a warrant in order “to protect an occupant from imminent injury” or “to protect or preserve life” had passed well before the deputies finally entered the Camper. King, 563 U.S. at 460; Mincey, 437 U.S. at 392. The “emergency aid” exception to the warrant requirement does not apply here. Id.; Purcell, 526 F.3d at 960 (“Courts that have found that exigent circumstances existed uniformly cite the need for prompt action by government personnel”) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Radka, 904 F.2d 357, 361-63 (6th Cir. 1990) (reversing district court’s denial of motion to suppress, after considering the “totality of the circumstances and the inherent necessities of the situation at the time”). Compare Atchley, 474 F.3d at 845 (emergency aid exception applied where officers acted on apparent emergency right away and entered the premises upon perceiving it).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Two defendants had standing in a camper. The officers\u2019 warrantless entry into it was without exigency because the exigency, if it existed, passed. It was based on a suspected overdose, but the officer admitted he had only a couple of … Continue reading