Warrantless Entry After a 911 Hang-Up in Dededo
At 2:14 a.m., Guam Police Department officers respond to a 911 hang-up from a Dededo apartment. Dispatch reports no words, only a hang-up. The apartment is dark except for a television. Officers knock for two minutes; no answer. They hear no yelling, no objects falling, no crying. The door is unlocked. Officers announce 'police' and enter. They find Diego, the boyfriend of the renter, asleep on the couch. On the coffee table in plain view are a glass pipe with white residue and a loaded 9mm handgun. Diego is a convicted felon. He is charged with felon in possession and drug possession. The renter arrives and says Diego had permission to stay and that she did not consent to the search. Diego moves to suppress. The government argues the 911 hang-up created exigent circumstances and that the pipe and gun were in plain view.
1. Was the warrantless entry lawful?
Read the worked answer
Emergency aid. A warrantless home entry is presumptively unreasonable. The emergency-aid exception requires an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside is seriously injured or in danger. A 911 hang-up can supply that basis, but not automatically. Here officers knew only that a call ended. At 2:14 a.m. they found a dark apartment lit by a television. They knocked for two minutes and heard no yelling, crying, objects falling, or calls for help. No one answered. On these facts, a reasonable officer could suspect a problem, but the totality does not establish exigency; the government needs more corroboration. Community caretaking does not authorize a search of a home for evidence. The unlocked door is not consent.
2. If the entry was unlawful, does the plain-view doctrine save the pipe and gun?
Read the worked answer
Plain view. The plain-view doctrine requires a lawful vantage point. If the entry violated the Fourth Amendment, the pipe and gun were not lawfully observed. The incriminating character of the pipe is apparent; the gun is apparent as a weapon, but felon-in-possession requires knowledge of Diego's status. The officers could not use the entry to search for evidence. The evidence should be suppressed unless the government proves an independent source or inevitable discovery. There is no independent source in the facts; inevitable discovery is speculative because no warrant was being sought.
3. What effect does the renter's later statement have?
Read the worked answer
Consent and statements. The renter arrived after the entry. Her statement that Diego had permission to stay actually strengthens his privacy interest; it does not authorize the search. She said she did not consent. Even if she could consent to a search of common areas, consent must be voluntary and given before the search, not after. The later statement cannot retroactively validate the entry. Diego's own statements, if any, would be tainted as fruit of the poisonous tree unless attenuated. The court should grant the motion to suppress the pipe and gun and any derivative statements.