S.D.Fla.: Defendant ducking inside when the police showed up was exigency

When officers saw the defendant duck inside when they showed up at his house, they had exigent circumstances. United States v. Shillingford, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150154 (S.D. Fla. December 19, 2011)*:

Exigent circumstances also existed. Detective Penoyer testifies that she saw Defendant from the doorway, and that he ran into the kitchen. The Court does not credit Defendant’s attempts to refute this testimony based on the short distance to the kitchen. Defendant testifies that he heard someone at the door, looked around the kitchen wall, saw the officers–unknown to be officers, and ducked back into the kitchen to hide in the closet. Whether he was running into the kitchen or ducking back into the kitchen to hide, Defendant, after observing and being observed by law enforcement, moved quickly out of view. The reasonable conclusion by Detective Penoyer was that Defendant was fleeing, destroying evidence or getting a weapon. This suffices to create exigent circumstances. Blasco, 702 F.2d at 1325. As such, irrespective of the marijuana’s location, both the probable cause and exigent circumstances necessary to enter a house without a warrant were present.

Statement immediately after arrest was unMirandized and suppressed. United States v. Cotter, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150248 (W.D. Mo. December 21, 2011)*:

The statement made by Cotter at the scene and after he had been arrested, however, is a different matter. After Cotter had been handcuffed and arrested, the officers asked Cotter why he had a gun and Cotter responded by saying that he was holding it for Matt, the owner of the Cadillac. Cotter was not apprised of his Miranda rights prior to this inquiry. Moreover, the Court concludes that this statement was the product of custodial interrogation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.