IL: When exigency forms is determined on the totality

On the totality of circumstances, there was exigency for the police entry, despite their delay. All in all, the delay was reasonable as information was learned, and then it was time to act. People v. Kulpin, 2021 IL App (2d) 180696, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 41 (Feb. 8, 2021):

[*P45] The facts in Lomax and Feddor, as well as in the other cases defendant cites, are unlike the present case. Here, the officers responded to a a missing person report rather than an emergency in progress, such as a 911 hang-up call …, the sudden appearance in a police station of a disheveled, disoriented person …, the report of the presence of dynamite in a house trailer …, or a report of theft of telephone services …. It was not until the De Kalb officers assimilated all of the information known to each of them through their investigations that they determined the existence of an emergency likely involving a drug overdose. In missing person cases, courts approach “each claim of an extraordinary situation by looking at the totality of the particular circumstances known to the searching officer.” People v. Rogers, 46 Cal. 4th 1136, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 652, 209 P.3d 977, 995 (Cal. 2009).

[*P46] The facts in Rogers are similar to our facts. In Rogers, the San Diego police received a report that Biata Toronczak was missing and her mother feared that the defendant, who was Biata’s paramour, was responsible. … The defendant was evasive and short when questioned. … Detective Carlson received information that the defendant had threatened to lock Biata in the basement storage area of his residence. … Carlson delayed investigating that tip for over four hours. … Then, Carlson spoke with neighbors, who had not seen Biata in weeks. … Carlson also learned that the defendant had sole control over the storage area. … When Carlson mentioned to the defendant that he had heard of the threat the defendant made to Biata, and then asked the defendant’s permission to check the storage area, the defendant’s throat began to throb, and he denied permission. … Carlson and other officers then broke into the storage area, where they discovered a bloody and macabre crime scene. …

[*P47] The California Supreme Court held that “substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination *** that the circumstances known to Detective Carlson established an objective emergency requiring immediate action.” … The defendant argued that there was no emergency, because, in part, Carlson’s delays in investigating the storage area was inconsistent with his belief that an emergency existed. … The California Supreme Court held that, “it makes no difference that Carlson could perhaps have acted even more quickly,” because the “relevant inquiry remains whether, in light of all of the circumstances, there was an objectively urgent need to justify a warrantless entry.” … The court reasoned that the absence of evidence that Biata was dead, the defendant’s lack of concern, the defendant’s physical reaction when Carlson mentioned the threat to lock Biata in the storage area, and the defendant’s sole control over the storage area “all contributed to Carlson’s sense of urgency” about entering the storage area immediately to look for Biata. …

[*P48] The Iowa case of State v. Carlson, 548 N.W.2d 138 (Iowa 1996), is also instructive. …