Officers got a geolocation warrant for two cell phones, one owned by this defendant. They tracked him from Sacramento to near Portland. Finally, he was at a motel. The officers didn\u2019t apply for a search warrant for the hotel room but did a knock-and-talk and also believed that defendant used his cell phone in his drug crime. Whispering and other sounds from inside made exigent circumstances for the entry. United States v. Canchola, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229047 (D.Ore. Nov. 29, 2021)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Here, the Court finds exigent circumstances made the warrantless search of the hotel room objectively reasonable. Officers needed to prevent both physical harm to the officers or other persons and the imminent destruction of evidence. Based on the information from CD1 and CD2 as well as geolocation data, officers had probable cause to believe that there was evidence of a crime in the hotel room. They could have obtained a search warrant. Instead, for a variety of reasons, the officers knocked on the door, eventually identifying themselves as police. As Special Agent Dixon testified, drug transactions are inherently dangerous and happen quickly. Drugs can also be destroyed in a hotel room. In this case, officers heard whispering and shuffling after Special Agent Dixon knocked on the door and announced that they were police, which could indicate\u2014among other things\u2014that the occupants were moving to destroy or hide evidence. Moreover, based on information from CD1, it was possible that this drug transaction involved a firearm, putting the safety of both the officers and other hotel guests at risk. \u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officers got a geolocation warrant for two cell phones, one owned by this defendant. They tracked him from Sacramento to near Portland. Finally, he was at a motel. The officers didn\u2019t apply for a search warrant for the hotel room … Continue reading