CA9: Arrest of def’s drug runners was exigency for entry into his hotel room

The arrest of defendant’s drug runners was exigency for entry into his hotel room. United States v. Biggs, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7696 (9th Cir. Apr. 2, 2025).

The trial court erred in holding that defendant’s father who owned the house didn’t have apparent authority to consent to a search of the premises producing evidence taken in a burglary. (It didn’t help defendant’s cause that he actually denied living there.) State v. Bromwell, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 218 (Apr. 1, 2025).*

“The Court of Appeals has stated that under the emergency exception, the police may make a warrantless entry into a protected area if (1) they have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property, (2) the search is not primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and (3) there is some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched (see People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178, 347 N.E.2d 607, 383 N.Y.S.2d 246). Although the United States Supreme Court has determined that the second prong, regarding the subjective intent of the police, is not relevant under the Fourth Amendment (see Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US at 404-405), we need not decide whether the second prong of Mitchell is still viable under the New York Constitution because we conclude that the People did not satisfy the first prong of Mitchell (see People v Doll, 21 NY3d 665, 671, 998 N.E.2d 384, 975 N.Y.S.2d 721 n; People v Scott, 133 AD3d 794, 796-797, 21 N.Y.S.3d 121).” People v. Carey, 2025 NY Slip Op 01944 (2d Dept. Apr. 2, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Apparent authority, Emergency / exigency. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.