UT: Emergency aid exception permitted entry for apparent homicide victim who was missing

The emergency aid exception permitted entry into this murder scene. The victim was the grandmother of a child who punctually picked the child up every day at school. When she didn’t show for hours, the school notified police. They went to her house and found her car oddly parked with front end damage. Looking in a window, they saw what appeared to be a body covered by a tarp. They finally entered, and defendant was inside holding a gun and the grandmother dead. The entry was lawful. The court also declines to adopt a broader standard under the state constitution. State v. Tran, 2024 UT 7, 2024 UT Lexis 7 (Feb. 29, 2024).

This isn’t even a motion to suppress. Instead, it sounds more like a motion in limine, and it’s denied. “Nevertheless, Defendant does not argue that these concerns amount to a constitutional defect or other illegality. He does not explain how questions about a CI’s credibility, or about chain of custody of evidence in this context, amount to constitutional-level challenges to the Task Force’s conduct. Indeed, in review of the information adduced to the undersigned, it is not certain that such an argument even could be made.” United States v. Glover, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34293 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 9, 2024).*

Florida’s stand your ground law permitted defendant to use nondeadly force against an unwelcome code inspector into her condo where, by all accounts, he was violating her right to privacy and reasonable expectation of privacy. Paese v. State, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 1509 (4th DCA Feb. 28, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Emergency / exigency, Motion to suppress. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.