{"id":8410,"date":"2013-02-22T15:56:52","date_gmt":"2013-02-23T00:00:26","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-02-22T15:35:51","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8410","title":{"rendered":"OH4: Entry into defendant’s house was objectively reasonable where his father was murdered nearby"},"content":{"rendered":"

Entry into defendant\u2019s house under the emergency aid exception was objectively justified because of a murder of his father in the house next door and he couldn\u2019t be found. State v. Markins<\/a>, 2013 Ohio 602, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 530 (4th Dist. February 8, 2013):<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

[*P1] Gary Markins, Jr. appeals his convictions and sentence for the murder and robbery of Gary Markins, Sr. and Nina Mannering. First he argues that the trial court erred by overruling his motion to suppress evidence. Specifically he claims that his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated because law enforcement did not obtain a warrant before entering his girlfriend’s home where he was staying as an overnight guest. However, the objective circumstances show that it was reasonable for the officers to believe that Markins or his girlfriend might be in need of aid. Therefore, the warrantless entry into the home was justified under the emergency-aid exception to the search warrant requirement. And because the evidence discovered during the entry was in plain view, there was no illegal search or seizure.<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

[*P24] Considering that law enforcement had recently discovered Markins, Sr. and Mannering murdered in his home and they knew that his son and Williams were also involved in drug activity and living in her trailer just 150 yards away, it was reasonable for the detectives to believe that they might also have been injured and require assistance. And because the officers only stayed in the home long enough to determine that no one else was in need of aid and did not search for evidence, the warrantless entry in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. When viewed objectively, the entry of Williams’ trailer was justified under the emergency-aid exception. Likewise, what they observed in plain view once they were legally inside was not protected by the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8410","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8410"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8410\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}