ND: Officer created exigency didn’t require suppression where there was independent source

Officers created their own exigency by sticking a foot in a motel room door, but the court finds the independent source doctrine saves the search because they already had enough information in the submission for the search warrant independent of that. State v. Kuruc, 2014 ND 95, 2014 N.D. LEXIS 97 (May 8, 2014):

[¶14] Here, the exigency of destruction of evidence was created by the officer’s actions in entering the constitutionally protected space. Although Larson and Kuruc had a 1:00 p.m. checkout time, there is nothing in the record to indicate law enforcement could not have secured a warrant prior to that time. Officers were aware of the specific room Larson and Kuruc were staying in and could have had the room under surveillance to assure the suspects did not leave. The record also suggests Larson and Kuruc did not know of the officers’ presence. The facts [*9] simply do not reflect a situation involving the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of the evidence until after police entered the room.

[¶15] Thus, as a preliminary matter, we conclude the officer did enter a constitutionally protected space when she stepped into the hotel room without a search warrant and without exigent circumstances. The district court did not err in finding that, because there were no exigent circumstances, the entry into the room was unreasonable. We next turn our analysis to determine whether the court erred when it applied the independent-source doctrine.

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Independent source. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.