Officers had a 911 call that there was a domestic disturbance, and, at the scene, defendant came out of the house to talk with them and was calm and cooperative. Still, they had exigent circumstances for an emergency entry to check for injured persons. The \u201cinvestigative detention of defendant and the sweep of his home turned into a lengthy and warrantless occupation of defendant’s house.\u201d Consent finally granted was tainted. United States v. Warthen, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93274 (N.D. Okla. July 3, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Based on the testimony, it is not clear if Taylor’s actions constitute a continuation of the sweep or a separate entry into defendant’s home, but it is apparent that the investigative detention of defendant and the sweep of his home turned into a lengthy and warrantless occupation of defendant’s house. There is no evidence that defendant consented to the police officers’ presence in his home after the security sweep, and Taylor’s testimony establishes that defendant was not asked to consent to a continued police presence in his house. Even if police had a legitimate basis to believe that exigent circumstances required an immediate search of defendant’s house for injured persons, the scope of the search significantly exceeded the purpose for entering defendant’s house. The government has offered no other exception to the warrant requirement that could apply under the circumstances. The Court finds that the scope of the sweep was a violation of defendant’s constitutional rights.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Back to blog<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading