{"id":52243,"date":"2022-04-29T07:14:57","date_gmt":"2022-04-29T12:14:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=52243"},"modified":"2022-04-29T07:14:57","modified_gmt":"2022-04-29T12:14:57","slug":"ca2-shot-fired-through-wall-justified-entry-into-that-locked-room","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=52243","title":{"rendered":"CA2: Shot fired through wall justified entry into that locked room"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\u201cAt the time they entered Laurent’s locked room, the officers knew that only minutes before a shot had been fired from the locked room into the neighboring room. The district court did not err, much less clearly err, in finding that exigency justified the officers’ entry into the room and cursory investigation of the areas of the room that were out of view, where an injured person or a person representing a threat of harm could be.\u201d That supported a plain view. United States v. Laurent<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 11211 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defendant consented to providing his phone passcode after refusing five times. Still, it was found consensual on the totality. \u201cKey to our analysis here is the military judge’s factual findings that the investigator used a professional tone at all times and did not engage in threats, abuse, or coercion. Although the five refusals are a factor we have considered, we conclude that under the \u2018totality of the circumstances\u2019 there is not a basis for us to conclude that Appellant’s entry of his passcode was involuntary. Indeed, looking at the facts and the law as a whole, we conclude that the military judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress.\u201d United States v. Nelson<\/a>, 2022 CAAF LEXIS 302 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 25, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cAt the time they entered Laurent’s locked room, the officers knew that only minutes before a shot had been fired from the locked room into the neighboring room. The district court did not err, much less clearly err, in finding … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,24,3,51],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52243","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-phones","category-consent","category-emergency-exigency","category-plain-view"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52243","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=52243"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52243\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52244,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52243\/revisions\/52244"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=52243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=52243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=52243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}