{"id":7487,"date":"2013-03-28T08:09:03","date_gmt":"2012-07-26T10:46:12","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-07-26T10:46:12","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7487","title":{"rendered":"CA10: Officers believing exigency and beating on door were not threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment if door not opened"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officers beating on the door to open when they reasonably believed there was an exigency was not unreasonable. Their actions did not amount to a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment if the door wasn\u2019t opened. United States v. Ramirez-Fragozo<\/a>, 490 Fed. Appx. 125 (10th Cir. 2012) [Co-defendant’s case: United States v. Canas, 462 Fed. Appx. 836, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3329 (10th Cir. 2012)]:<\/p>\n

We emphasize two fundamentals: First, the facts creating the exigency occurred well prior to the officers’ arrival at the house, as discussed above. Second, the officers made no overt threat to violate the occupant’s rights. After their arrival, the officers knocked on the door several times; they twice announced their presence; they twice asked the occupants to come to the door; and they twice waited for a response. This is not a “demand that amounts to a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment.” King, 131 S. Ct. at 1863.<\/p>\n

Ramirez-Fragozo argues the “show of military force … clearly implied that if there was no compliance with their demands the Fourth Amendment would be violated,” (Appellant’s Br. at 27). However, there was no evidence that the occupants were aware of the extent of the police presence or felt threatened. Mostly we have the suppositions of counsel. We know only that someone spread a blind, peeked out of the window and then drew the blind. We have no idea what the occupants saw or thought.<\/p>\n

But we know that after the peek there was a flurry of activity, reasonably suggesting destruction of evidence. Before the officers arrived they were legitimately concerned that critical evidence would be lost if they did not act decisively. The events at the door exacerbated those pre-existing concerns\u2014destruction of evidence was not merely likely, it was ongoing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-7487","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7487","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=7487"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7487\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7487"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7487"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7487"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}