W.D.N.Y.: No exigency shown for warrantless domestic entry

Based on the complaint, there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry into the home for a domestic disturbance that had calmed way down before police got there. Intertwined is the qualified immunity claim, and there’s not enough here to dismiss the case. [Although, reading between the lines, the case is going to ultimately fail because the police had been there before for the same reason.] Ghani v. Town of W. Seneca, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155767 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2025).*

There was reasonable suspicion for the stop, and the officer knew defendant had an active warrant. The motion to suppress was properly denied. State v. Songer, 2025 MT 176 (Aug. 12, 2025).*

Petitioner’s habeas claim is that the evidence wasn’t sufficient for conviction, but it’s really just an attempt to relitigate the Fourth Amendment claim. Wood v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20417 (6th Cir. Aug. 11, 2025).*

Appellant’s DNA was properly obtained by statute and re-analyzed later. His Fourth Amendment and state constitutional claims weren’t presented below and are waived. State v. Munoz-Hernandez, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1612 (Aug. 12, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.