Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
United States v. Tookes
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
May 11, 2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
JEROME TOOKES, Defendant.
ORDER FINDING BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT
DEFENDANT VIOLATED SUPERVISED RELEASE CONDITIONS 1 AND
D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, violations of
supervised release conditions numbered 1 and 2, the Court
relies upon the evidence lawfully discovered by a law
enforcement warrantless search at the 19368 Andover Street
residence, and the testimony and exhibits introduced at the
April 18, 2018 evidentiary hearing. The Court finds that the
Government has met its burden to support an exception to the
search warrant requirement based upon testimony and evidence
introduced at the evidentiary hearing on April 18, 2018. The
Court finds that the evidence supports its application of the
exigent circumstances exception and/or emergency aid
exception to the search warrant requirement. The Court does
not find that the police "manufactured" the
applicable exception(s) to the search warrant requirement.
following quotations from relevant Supreme Court decisions
inform the Court's ruling:
Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011).
It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law, that
searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are
presumptively unreasonable. At 1856 (citation omitted).
One well-recognized exception applies when the exigencies of
the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling
that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under
the Fourth Amendment. Id. (citation omitted).
This Court has identified several exigencies that may justify
a warrantless search of a home. Under the "emergency
aid" exception, for example, officers may enter a home
without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an
injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent
injury. Id. (citation omitted).
Police officers may enter premises without a warrant when
they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. And [t]he need
to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. Id.
Over the years, lower courts have developed an exception to
the exigent circumstances rule, the so-called
"police-created exigency" doctrine... [L]aw
enforcement officers must be responding to an unanticipated
exigency rather than simply creating the exigency for
themselves. Id. at 1857 (citation omitted).
Destruction of evidence issues probably occur most frequently
in drug cases because drugs may be easily destroyed by
flushing them down a toilet or rinsing them down a drain.
Our cases have repeatedly rejected a subjective approach,
asking only whether "the circumstances, viewed
objectively, justify the action." .... Indeed,
we have never held ... that an officer's motive
invalidates objectively justifiable behavior under the Fourth
Amendment." Id. at 1859 (citation omitted).
We have noted that "[t]he calculus of reasonableness
must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are
often forced to make split-second judgments - in
circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly
evolving." The reasonable forseeability test would
create unacceptable and unwarranted difficulties for law
enforcement officers who must make quick decisions in the
field, as well as for Judges who would be required to
determine after the fact whether the destruction of evidence
in response to a knock on the door was reasonably forseeable
based on what officers knew at the time. Id. at
Michigan v. Fisher, 130 S.Ct. 546 (2009)
Officers do not need ironclad proof of "a likely
serious, life-threatening" injury to invoke the
emergency aid exception. Id. at 549 ...
Buy This Entire Record For