The warrantless entry into defendant\u2019s house could not be justified as a domestic violence call. When the vague call came to police, it was only that a person was \u201cupsetting things,\u201d and the officer en route stopped to investigate a hitchhiker first. Clearly, the officers did not consider this an emergency before getting there, and the facts there were no better for the government. \u201cIn this case, however, where the totality of the circumstances confronting Burns included only a vague report made by a known caller with a history of unreliable reports about a disruption inside her son’s residence, uncorroborated by observations or other evidence at the scene consistent with an altercation, I conclude that the government has failed to establish that Burns’s entry was justified by the emergency aid doctrine.\u201d United States v. Race, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17209 (W.D.N.Y. February 11, 2015).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s appeal on alleged lack of consent is summarily affirmed: no showing trial court erred. State v. Cooley, 2015 N.H. LEXIS 17 (January 26, 2015).*<\/p>\n
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash put out for collection. The record is unclear as to whether the officers entered the property, but the trial court found that the officers waited for Minot city sanitation to come before getting the trash, and that means the officers didn\u2019t enter the property unlawfully. State v. Apland, 2015 ND 29, 2015 N.D. LEXIS 27 (February 12, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The warrantless entry into defendant\u2019s house could not be justified as a domestic violence call. When the vague call came to police, it was only that a person was \u201cupsetting things,\u201d and the officer en route stopped to investigate a … Continue reading