{"id":4501,"date":"2011-01-11T11:36:25","date_gmt":"2010-08-03T09:00:10","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-08-03T09:00:10","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4501","title":{"rendered":"CA10: Defendant’s saying he had \u201csomething on him\u201d meant a gun and that was exigent circumstances here"},"content":{"rendered":"

Whether defendant\u2019s apartment entry way was a public place was briefed but did not have to be decided because the officers had exigent circumstances from defendant\u2019s admission he had \u201csomething on him.\u201d United States v. Martin<\/a>, 613 F.3d 1295 (10th Cir. 2010)*:<\/p>\n

First, the arresting officer testified that, based upon his experience, when a suspect states that he has \u201csomething on him,\u201d that usually means \u201che has a gun.\u201d … No one seriously disputes as much. Before entering the building, then, the officers had come face to face with a man who had likely shot someone else earlier in the day, who claimed he had a gun on him, and who, after being told to place his hands on the wall, dropped his hands from sight. In these circumstances, the \u201cofficers had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that there was an immediate need to enter to protect [their] safety.\u201d Reeves, 524 F.3d at 1169; see also Walker, 474 F.3d at 1251-53 (exigent circumstances permitting entry into home existed after man inside the house, in response to the officer announcing his presence outside, shouted, \u201cYeah, and I got a goddamn gun\u201d); United States v. Thomas, 372 F.3d 1173, 1175, 1178 (10th Cir. 2004) (warrantless entry permitted after defendant brandished a weapon).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Officers were at the defendant\u2019s house based on a 911 call that a woman was being held hostage against her will. When they got there, the woman was not harmed, but the officers entered to check it out. Drugs were found in plain view. The entry was still with exigent circumstances, and the first appearances were not binding. State v. Arnold<\/a>, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 637 (July 26, 2010).*<\/p>\n

The video, not presented at the suppression hearing, was shown at trial, so it could be relied upon to determine the reasonable suspicion for defendant\u2019s stop and seizure. State v. Wilson<\/a>, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 646 (July 26, 2010).*<\/p>\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-4501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4501","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=4501"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4501\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}