W.D.Mo.: Def running around naked on street on PCP and kids in house justified emergency

Defendant was raving and running around naked on PCP “and was exhibiting bizarre and erratic behavior” and his front door was left open. There were children in the house, and the police were permitted under the emergency aid exception to make an entry, and drugs were in plain view and wouldn’t be suppressed. United States v. Kelly, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104544 (W.D.Mo. July 19, 2016), adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104542 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 9, 2016):

Applying the exigent circumstances criteria to the facts of this case, the Court concludes that the officers were justified in their initial warrantless entry into Kelly’s residence. At that time, the officers knew that Kelly had been under the influence of PCP and was exhibiting bizarre and erratic behavior, that Kelly had been seen running naked and yelling near his residence, that Kelly lived with a female and two children, that the female and two children had not been seen that day, and that the front door to Kelly’s residence had been left open in the middle of December. While these facts would not have supported a detailed search of Kelly’s residence, they did reasonably justify a sweep of the residence by the officers to ensure that the other inhabitants of the house were not injured. Compare Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 335, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 1099, 108 L. Ed. 2d 276 (1990) (“protective sweeps” for officer safety are permissible so long as they are limited to a cursory inspection of spaces where a person may be found and last no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger).

Inasmuch as the “emergency aid” sweep of the residence was justified, it then follows that the officers’ plain view observation of the drug paraphernalia was not improper. Correspondingly, the inclusion of the information in the search warrant application was not erroneous. Compare United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 598 F.3d 997, 1007 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Having determined that the entry and protective sweep were legal, the information included in the affidavit supporting the search warrant was not illegally obtained and it provided the requisite probable cause to support the search warrant.”).

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

Comments are closed.