Three on exigency

The emergency aid exception permitted entry into victim’s home. She hadn’t been seen all day and her child was unaccounted for. This entry was objectively reasonable, and the police were not required to use alternate means to seek to find the child which would delay them. State v. Lovejoy, 2024 ME 42, 2024 Me. LEXIS 45 (May 23, 2024).

Defendant’s landlord entered with a repairman for HVAC repair and found five dead dogs. Permitting the police to enter to check was reasonable under the emergency aid exception. Then a warrant was obtained. The dogs’ necropsy showed they’d died months earlier from lack of food and water. State v. Leuders, 2024 Conn. App. LEXIS 141 (May 28, 2024).

“In any case, here, the protective sweep was justified as a warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment. The warrantless entry was a reasonable response to police perception of possible danger based on appellant’s statement that someone else, appellant’s father, was inside the home. The fact that appellant indicated his father was not aware of the situation did not automatically negate the threat the father may have posed. Appellant had just informed police that he committed a violent crime in the house and that another person had helped him dispose of the body. It was reasonable for police to secure the premises in case other occupants posed a similar danger. The fact that police detained appellant before entering did not render the sweep unreasonable, because they had reason to believe that the house harbored at least one other person.” Pough v. Commonwealth, 2024 Va. App. LEXIS 297 (May 28, 2024)* (unpublished).

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

Comments are closed.