The officers\u2019 first entry into defendant\u2019s premises was without exigent circumstances since they were not articulated. Therefore, the entry was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A second entry was valid. United States v. Medina, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25965 (E.D. Wis. March 11, 2011), adopting R&R 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25597 (E.D. Wis. January 13, 2011):<\/p>\n
The government also asserts that exigent circumstances existed because Agent Hale was concerned about officer safety, but does not elaborate on the basis for that concern. This is especially relevant because at the time of Special Agent Hale\u2019s entry, all of the agents on the scene were on the street and not in the residence. They had already detained all the individuals on the street. According to the testimony, they were waiting for the arrival of the defendant’s vehicle and the defendant. Moreover, Agent Hale did not articulate a specific reason for his concern for officer safety when asked to expand upon this at the hearing. The exigent circumstances standard requires more than not knowing if an individual will cause harm or present a threat to officer safety. Rather, \u201can objective standard governs the reasonableness of law enforcement officials\u2019 belief that exigent circumstances have arisen.\u201d Patino, 830 F.2d at 1415. Given the facts in evidence, this court finds that the government has not established an objectively reasonable belief that exigent circumstances based on officer safety concerns warranted entering the defendant\u2019s home.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading