{"id":4870,"date":"2011-01-08T14:50:57","date_gmt":"2010-11-09T06:04:58","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-11-09T06:04:58","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4870","title":{"rendered":"OR: A loud argument is not a DV call, and the warrantless entry was invalid"},"content":{"rendered":"

A mere loud argument in a motel room that the police were called to was not sufficient to justify a warrantless entry into the room. State v. Fredricks<\/a>, 238 Ore. App. 349, 243 P.3d 97 (2010):<\/p>\n

Here, the evidence in the record shows only that Walker overheard a loud argument that, in his words, was \u201cnot deescalating.\u201d The record does not contain any other objective indicia of a \u201cpotential victim of a dangerous circumstance or a potential perpetrator of a dangerous act.\u201d Id. Where police overhear a loud argument, unaccompanied by any sounds of \u201cphysical struggle or an indication that an act of violence ha[s] occured,\u201d a warrantless entry into a defendant\u2019s residence is not authorized by the emergency aid doctrine. Salisbury, 223 Ore. App. at 524. It follows that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Judge Moylan trashes the defense Fourth Amendment arguments as being pointless and without citation of authority. Also, the violation of the knock-and-announce rule he declares \u201ctrivial\u201d (\u201cthe Exclusionary Rule of Mapp v. Ohio does not apply to such relatively trivial breaches of the Fourth Amendment as violations of the knock-and-announce rule. Hudson v. Michigan \u2026\u201d) was also meaningless since the search of the house produced nothing. There was a typo in the year of the search on the inventory which was also meaningless. Woods v. State<\/a>, 2010 Md. App. LEXIS 170 (November 3, 2010).*<\/p>\n

When the officer was standing at the door, the defendant said \u201cCome on in,\u201d and this was consent and supported the plain view of the gun in this case. United States v. Harris, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117373 (E.D. Mo. September 27, 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-4870","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4870","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=4870"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4870\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}