American laws are very protective of a person’s right to privacy on their own property. As a result, there are strict restrictions on when government or law enforcement officials can enter private property without permission. In most situations, law enforcement officials must provide the court with probable cause that an illegal activity has occurred and request a warrant to search the property for specific evidence.
However, police officers may legally enter private property without the aid of a warrant if there are exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances involve situations where time is of the essence and waiting for a warrant to be issued could result in serious societal harm. Generally, exigent circumstances exist if people are in imminent danger, a criminal suspect is escaping, or evidence is being destroyed.
There is no standard test to establish whether exigent circumstances exist since the situation is one of extraordinary circumstances. Instead, the court will typically look at the time when the officer makes the warrantless search to see if a reasonable officer at the scene would believe that it was urgent to act and impractical to secure a warrant. Some of the factors that the court might use include:
Once an entry is made due to exigent circumstances, it may still be necessary for police to obtain a warrant before conducting a search.
Police departments often create undercover operations to preemptively prevent crimes. Other situations may cause a police officer to unknowingly cause a suspect to react in a way which raises one of the exigent circumstances listed above.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that even if the police officer caused the exigent circumstances allowing a warrantless search, any evidence obtained by that search is still valid as long as the officer did not violate or threaten to violate the 4th Amendment.
No, police only need probable cause to believe that exigent circumstances exist to enter a premise without a warrant. In other words, if there is enough evidence to give officers a reasonable suspicion that an exigent circumstance exists, then they may enter without a warrant.
Even if the reasonable suspicion turns out to be wrong, police officers will still be covered by the exigent circumstance doctrine.
Yes. A famous case addressing this issue involved a 911 emergency call, in which the caller failed to say anything to the emergency dispatcher on the line. When police arrived at the location of the call, there was no response at the door.
The court in that case ruled that under those circumstances, it was reasonable for the police to enter the home without a warrant as it was reasonable for the officers to believe in that situation that someone inside may have needed emergency medical assistance.
An officer only needs enough evidence to raise a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity or exigent circumstances to satisfy the probable cause requirement. Evidence commonly used to satisfy probable cause includes:
If your home has been searched or entered based on a claim of exigent circumstances, you should speak to a lawyer immediately. A local criminal lawyer can help you determine whether the search was legal and advise you of your rights. In addition, an attorney can gather physical evidence, interview witnesses, research possible defenses, negotiate with the prosecutor, and represent you in court.
Last Modified: 05-17-2018 08:53 PM PDTLaw Library Disclaimer
We've helped more than 4 million clients find the right lawyer – for free. Present your case online in minutes. LegalMatch matches you to pre-screened lawyers in your city or county based on the specifics of your case. Within 24 hours experienced local lawyers review it and evaluate if you have a solid case. If so, attorneys respond with an offer to represent you that includes a full attorney profile with details on their fee structure, background, and ratings by other LegalMatch users so you can decide if they're the right lawyer for you.