E.D.Pa.: Warrantless “emergency” entry without an emergency violated 4A but no suppression for isolated negligent act

Police did a “hit and hold” on defendant’s house without a warrant, a tactic reserved for emergencies. This was not, but it was an isolated act of negligence so the exclusionary rule will not be applied. United States v. Walker, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9855 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2025):

There’s no place like home. “The home occupies a sacrosanct place in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.” United States v. Harrison, 689 F.3d 301, 307 (3d Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). In fact, “[f]reedom from intrusion into the home or dwelling is the archetype of the privacy protection secured by the Fourth Amendment.” Parkhurst v. Trapp, 77 F.3d 707, 711 (3d Cir. 1996) (same). Thus, in the usual course, judicial officers—not police officers—decide when “the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search.” United States v. Ritter, 416 F.3d 256, 264 (3d Cir. 2005) (same).

In this case, Pennsylvania State Troopers entered and secured Davone Desean Walker’s apartment before seeking a warrant—”a tactic sometimes used to respond to emergency circumstances.” United States v. Alexander, 54 F.4th 162, 165 (3d Cir. 2022). But the Government concedes that there were no exigent circumstances at the time officers conducted the so-called “hit-and-hold.” So, while the Third Circuit has suggested that hit-and-holds might pass constitutional muster in some instances, this case is not one of them. Indeed, the facts of this case are troubling, and the Pennsylvania State Troopers did not rely in good faith on a judicial order when they disregarded the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Nevertheless, I will deny Mr. Walker’s motion to suppress because he has not demonstrated that the officers’ conduct was more than an isolated act of negligence.