SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

1083; United States v. Martinez (9 th Cir. 2005) 406 F.3 rd 1160;
United States v. Russell (9 th Cir. 2006) 436 F.3 rd 1086.)
However, in United States v Snipe (9 th Cir. 2008) 515 F.3 rd 947,
951-952, the Ninth Circuit modified these rules in light of
Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) 547 U.S. 398 [164 L.Ed.2 nd 650]
and Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806 [135 L.Ed.2 nd
89], deleting altogether the second factor (the officers’ subjective
motivations being irrelevant) and finding the third factor to be a
part of the necessary “objectively reasonable basis for concluding
that an emergency is unfolding in the place to be entered.” (See
below.)
Now, the Ninth Circuit finds the following factors to be necessary:
Whether (1) considering the totality of the circumstances, law
enforcement had an objectively reasonable basis for concluding
that there was an immediate need to protect others or themselves
from serious harm, and (2) the search’s scope and manner were
reasonable to meet the need. (United States v Snipe, supra., at p.
952; see also Hopkins v. Bonvicino (9 th Cir. 2009) 573 F.3 rd 752,
763, fn. 5.)
Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) 547 U.S. 398 [164 L.Ed.2 nd 650]: The
Supreme Court ignored efforts by the lower courts to categorize the entry
into a house upon viewing an altercation through the window as coming
within the “emergency aid doctrine,” and merely noted the exigency of
protecting the occupants from being hurt. In so doing, the Court held that
a warrantless entry into a residence is lawful when police have “an
objectively reasonable basis for believing” that an occupant is seriously
injured or imminently threatened with such injury, and then the manner of
the officers’ entry was also reasonable.
Officers responding to a call of a disturbance, finding a pickup truck in the
driveway which had apparently been in an accident, blood on the truck
and on clothes in the truck, broken windows in the house, and defendant,
barricaded inside, screaming and throwing things. Defendant had a visible
cut on his hand. One officer forced his way in only to have defendant
point a rifle at him. Noting that “(i)t requires only ‘an objective
reasonable basis for believing’ that ‘a person within [the house] is in need
of immediate aid,’ and that the officer was acting reasonably when he
made the warrantless entry into defendant’s home, the Court found the
entry to be lawful. (Cites Omitted; Michigan v. Fisher (Dec. 7, 2009)
558 U.S. __ [130 S.Ct. 546; 175 L.Ed.2 nd 410].)
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
“Officers do not need ironclad proof of ‘a likely serious, lifethreatening’
injury to invoke the emergency aid exception (to the
575