Exigent circumstances criminal defense attorney Stephen P. Shepard Towson, MD Baltimore County

What is the Exigent Circumstances Exception?

The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment allows the police to conduct a search or seizure without first obtaining a warrant if there is an urgent need to do so to prevent serious harm, the destruction of evidence, or the escape of a suspect. In other words, if there is no time to obtain a warrant, the police may proceed with a search or seizure in exigent circumstances.

Types of Different Exigent Circumstances

The types of exigent circumstances that can justify a warrantless search or seizure include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Hot Pursuit: This refers to a situation where a suspect is fleeing from the scene of a crime and the police are in immediate pursuit. In such cases, the officers may conduct a warrantless search or seizure to apprehend the suspect.
  • Danger to Life or Safety: If there is an imminent danger to life or safety, such as in cases of a hostage situation or a violent assault in progress, the police may conduct a warrantless search or seizure to protect the individuals at risk.
  • Destruction of Evidence: If the police have reason to believe that evidence of a crime is about to be destroyed, they may conduct a warrantless search or seizure to prevent the destruction of the evidence.
  • Public Safety: In cases where there is a threat to public safety, such as a bomb threat, the police may conduct a warrantless search or seizure to protect the public.

It is important to note that the existence of exigent circumstances does not automatically authorize a warrantless search or seizure. The search or seizure must still be reasonable under the circumstances, which requires a balancing of the government’s interests in conducting the search or seizure against the privacy interests of the individual.

Illustration: The Case of Kentucky v. King

One famous U.S. Supreme Court case where exigent circumstances applied is Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011).

In that case, police officers in Lexington, Kentucky were pursuing a suspected drug dealer who fled into an apartment building. The officers followed the suspect into the apartment building and smelled marijuana smoke coming from one of the apartments. They banged on the door and announced themselves, but there was no response. The officers then heard what sounded like movement inside the apartment and believed that the occupants were destroying evidence. Without a warrant, the officers forced their way into the apartment and found marijuana and other evidence of drug trafficking.

The defendants challenged the search, arguing that it violated the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. However, the Supreme Court held that the search was justified by exigent circumstances. Specifically, the Court found that the officers had an objectively reasonable belief that evidence was being destroyed and that there was no time to obtain a warrant. Therefore, the search was deemed reasonable and constitutional.

This case is significant because it established that police officers may rely on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when they reasonably believe that evidence is being destroyed, even if the exigency was created by their own conduct (i.e., by knocking on the door). However, the case also made clear that officers cannot create exigent circumstances by engaging in conduct that is reasonably likely to prompt occupants to destroy evidence.

Illustration: The Case of Brigham City v. Stuart

Another famous U.S. Supreme Court case where exigent circumstances applied is Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006).

In that case, police officers in Brigham City, Utah received a noise complaint about a party at a private residence. When the police officers arrived, they heard shouting and a commotion coming from inside the house. They knocked on the door and announced their presence, but no one answered. The officers then opened the unlocked door and entered the house, where they found a fight in progress. The officers arrested several individuals for disorderly conduct.

The defendants challenged the arrest, arguing that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement by entering the house without a warrant. However, the Supreme Court held that the officers had entered the house in response to exigent circumstances. Specifically, the Court found that the officers had an objectively reasonable belief that someone inside the house was in need of immediate assistance and that there was no time to obtain a warrant. Therefore, the entry was deemed reasonable and constitutional.

This case is significant because it established that police officers may rely on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when they reasonably believe that someone inside a residence is in need of immediate assistance. In such cases, the officers may enter the residence without a warrant to provide aid or prevent harm. However, the Court also emphasized that the reasonableness of the officers’ belief must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Towson, MD

Contact our office today to schedule a consultation with an award-winning criminal defense attorney if you or a loved one have been charged with a crime.

Call Now