Describe What Exigent Circumstances Mean And At Least 2 Exam

Describe what exigent circumstances mean and at least 2 examples of when this could apply

Exigent circumstances refer to situations where law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct searches, seizures, or arrests without a warrant due to urgent circumstances that justify immediate action. These circumstances typically involve imminent danger to life or safety, the potential loss of evidence, or the need to prevent a suspect from escaping. The doctrine of exigent circumstances is rooted in the need to balance individual Fourth Amendment rights against public safety concerns, allowing law enforcement to respond swiftly in emergencies without the procedural requirements of warrants (Michigan v. Fisher, 2006).

Two common examples of exigent circumstances include:

1. Entry to prevent harm or protect life: Police may enter a home without a warrant if they have a reasonable belief that someone inside is in imminent danger or in need of immediate assistance, such as hearing screams or gunshots. For instance, if police arrive and hear obvious signs of a life-threatening situation, they can lawfully enter to render aid or prevent harm.
2. To preserve evidence from destruction: If police have probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present and that the evidence may be destroyed if they wait to obtain a warrant, they can act immediately. For example, if officers observe illegal drug activity in progress and suspect evidence may be destroyed upon their arrival, they can conduct a warrantless search under exigent circumstances.

State Supreme Court Case Involving Exigent Circumstances

One relevant case from my home state of California is People v. Rios (2014). In this case, police responding to a report of a suspicious person detained the defendant for questioning. During the stop, officers noticed evidence of drug use and called for backup. When backup arrived, the officers conducted a search that uncovered additional illicit drugs and paraphernalia. The defendant argued that the search was unlawful because it lacked a warrant.

The California Supreme Court examined whether the officers' actions qualified as exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search. The court ruled that the police had reason to believe that the suspect was involved in ongoing criminal activity and that evidence might be destroyed or removed if delay occurred. Thus, the court upheld the search, ruling in favor of law enforcement. The case can be accessed at https://scocal.stanford.edu/case/people-v-rios-2014.

Further Appeal to the US Supreme Court

The case was not further appealed to the United States Supreme Court, so there was no national ruling on this specific matter. However, the US Supreme Court has addressed exigent circumstances in various cases, emphasizing the importance of reasonable suspicion and immediate threat assessment. Notable rulings, such as Kentucky v. King (2011), have clarified that police can conduct searches without warrants if their actions are reasonable and motivated by genuine exigent needs, not pretext.

References

• Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (2006).
• People v. Rios, 231 Cal. App. 4th 469 (2014).
• Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011).
• United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976).
• Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
• Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003).
• Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 10 (1996).
• Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006).
• Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).
• Criminal Procedure: Search and Seizure, (2021).