Informant Emergency Justified Warrantless Police Entry Into a Home

A police informant’s disobedience that led to him overdosing on drugs created an exigent circumstance that required police to enter a suspected drug dealer's home without a warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment

United States v. Belser, 2016 BL 384771, E.D. Mich., No. 16-20572, 11/18/16.

A U.S. District Court in Michigan found that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment by entering a home without a warrant because their informant’s drug overdose was not a fabricated exigent circumstance.  The police were conducting a sting of a local heroin dealer using an undercover informant who disobeyed orders during the operation by ingesting some of the purchased drugs. After hearing strange breathing sounds and the dealer attempting to revive the informant through the radio, the police entered the home, called for medics, and arrested the dealer.

The court held that the exigent circumstances that led to the police’s entry of the home did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was a true medical emergency. The defendant argued that the police contributed to the emergency by disregarding the unreliable character of the informant, claiming that the decision to use the informant was the proximate cause of the exigency. The court rejected this argument, stating, “proximate cause is not the test to determine if the police created the exigency.” The officers met their Fourth Amendment requirements by taking the lawful steps necessary before entry, making the subsequent arrest and seizure of drugs lawful.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Belser_No_Case_No_1620572_2016_BL_384771_ED_Mich_?1479935222

Warrantless Blood Draw Justified By Broken Intoxilyzer

A blood draw performed without a warrant was justified by exigent circumstances after the officer attempted to use the police station's Intoxilyzer machine, but it was not functioning correctly.

 

State v. Arndt, 2016 BL 45450, Me., Sag-15-150, 2/18/16

     The deputy attempted four times to use the Intoxilyzer to obtain a blood-alcohol reading from a suspected drunk driver, but the machine was not functioning correctly. Because time was running out, as any alcohol in the blood stream was dissipating, the deputy had a paramedic take a sample of the suspect's blood.

     The Maine Supreme Court determined that the deputy's decision was reasonable, and did not go against Missouri vi McNeely, because 90 minutes had passed and he feared that the evidence would be lost because the Intoxilyzer was broken. See Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct 1552 (2013). 

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/State_v_Arndt_2016_ME_31_Court_Opinion?1457544612

No More Emergency Entry Exception When Crisis Ends

Police who enter a residence under the emergency exception are expected to restore order and prevent injury, but seizing and testing suspected items is beyond the emergency exception.

 

Commonwealth v. Kaeppeler, 2015 BL 428978, Mass., No. SJC-11855, 12/30/15

    Officers entered a house without a warrant under the "emergency aid exception," and determined that the occupant was no longer in distress. The police exceeded their authority after the initial entry when they seized and tested the contents of a tequila bottle.

    The police had received information from a local hospital that a couple who had been with the defendant the previous evening at his home had become seriously ill after drinking tequila. The police also heard from the defendant's coworker that he had not been to work that day.

    Based on that information, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the initial warrantless entry of the defendant's home because the police had a legitimate concern for his health and safety. There was no longer an emergency, however, after the police arrived and ensured that the defendant could get "checked out" at the hospital. The court said that "[f]rom that point on, the police had no further cause for concern about the defendant's well-being and no public safety justification to remain in his home."

    The court continued by saying "[w]e recognize that the role of a police officer responding to an emergency is not necessarily limited to rendering aid to an injured person. But here, the police went beyond that and started investigating things to which they had not warrant and no reasonable articulable suspicion.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Commonwealth_v_Kaeppeler_No_SJC11855_2015_BL_428978_Mass_Dec_30_2?1452097225