Defendant officers failed in their burden of showing that there were exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry into the plaintiff’s home. Kolesnikov v. Sacramento County, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33155 (E.D. Cal. April 21, 2008):<\/p>\n
Exigent circumstances supporting a warrantless arrest should seldom be found. LaLonde<\/em>, 204 F.3d at 956 (“Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit cases have strictly limited the exigency exception, especially in the context of warrantless arrests in the home.”). Such circumstances are narrowly construed and limited to emergency situations demanding an immediate response to prevent serious injury to the arresting officers or other persons. Id.<\/em> “The exigency exception can excuse a warrant for an in-home arrest when probable cause exists and there is a compelling reason for not obtaining a warrant-for example, a need to protect an officer or the public from danger, [a] need to avoid the imminent destruction of evidence, when entry in hot pursuit is necessary to prevent a criminal suspect’s escape, [or a need] to respond to fires or other emergencies.” Fisher<\/em>, 509 F.3d at 960 (internal quotation marks omitted and alterations in original). Exigent circumstances alone, however, are not enough to establish exigency and thereby excuse the warrant requirement. Id.<\/em> “Instead, [w]hen an officer undertakes to act as his own magistrate, he ought to be in a position to justify it by pointing to some real immediate and serious consequences if he postponed action to get a warrant.” Id.<\/em> (internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently, a situation is exigent for purposes of permitting an arrest without a warrant only if a warrant could not be obtained in time to effect the arrest safely-that is, without causing a delay dangerous to the officers or to members of the public. Id.<\/em> Where exigency is claimed, the government is required to either attempt, in good faith, to obtain a warrant or to present evidence explaining why a telephone warrant was unavailable or impractical. Id.<\/em> at 961.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Omission of information from the officer that maybe should have been put in the affidavit didn’t detract from the probable cause already shown, so there was no Franks<\/em><\/a> violation, and no hearing was required. United States v. Jones, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33337 (S.D. Fla. April 23, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Omissions from the affidavit did not detract from the probable cause, so a Franks<\/em> hearing was not required. United States v. Stephens, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33055 (N.D. Ind. April 21, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading