IN: 3 am entry into backyard to look for weapon when no one around couldn’t be justified by exigency

“There was no emergency here. Officer Eber and the trial court expressed concern that a firearm might have been lying in Hinton’s backyard and could be accessed by a child or other person. But, even if so, there was no one near the premises, and it was around three o’clock in the morning. There was no reason that Officer Eber could not have monitored the scene while seeking a warrant. Thus, Officer Eber’s entry into Hinton’s backyard was not justified by exigent circumstances.” Hinton v. State, 2023 Ind. App. LEXIS 212 (July 21, 2023).

“[T]hese communications between Officer Noe and the detectives amount to at least the ‘minimal level of communication’ necessary to allow the court to apply the collective knowledge doctrine.” United States v. McCrary, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125190 (N.D. Ga. May 31, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123927 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2023).*

The officer who stopped defendant’s vehicle did so with reasonable suspicion based on collective knowledge. United States v. Kim Dung Thi Lee, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125600 (W.D. Tex. July 20, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Collective knowledge, Curtilage, Emergency / exigency. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.