The suspect here was armed and wearing body armor, and there was clear exigency fully coalescing in the last 25 minutes. That justified an exigency based entry. The fact it turned out to be wrong doesn\u2019t matter. United States v. Clark, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43239 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 9, 2026)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nObjectively, this information as it came together in the final 25 minutes supported exigent circumstances to search the home shortly after the final piece, Clark’s cellphone, came to light. In this situation, the nearly 25 minutes during which these facts accumulated\u2014where law enforcement continued careful police work on the problem\u2014does not weaken the exigency of the situation. In making this assessment the Court does not consider the subjective beliefs of the officers or the hindsight judgment that they could have secured a warrant as evidenced by the eventual warrant they received a couple of hours later. See Cooks, 920 F.3d 735 at 742-43 (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) (“[I]t’s not our role to armchair quarterback the officers’ decision[.] \u2026 In assessing the reasonableness of officers’ actions, we cannot indulge ‘the 20\/20 vision of hindsight,’ but instead must adopt the ‘perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene[.]'”)). Similarly, the fact that they were wrong\u2014Clark was not hiding inside the house\u2014does not inform the objectiveness of their actions under then-known or assumed facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court must objectively assess the facts at the time, and when doing so, the undersigned finds the officers on the scene had reason to believe that in order to protect the lives of law enforcement (or anyone else in the vicinity), they had to act with exigency to search the home for Clark when they had probable cause to believe he was inside. \u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The suspect here was armed and wearing body armor, and there was clear exigency fully coalescing in the last 25 minutes. That justified an exigency based entry. The fact it turned out to be wrong doesn\u2019t matter. United States v. … Continue reading