The Forced Door and the Shoe Cabinet
At 02:15 a 112 call from the flat below reports a woman screaming and glass breaking in apartment 302. Two officers arrive at 02:22. The door is locked; knocking produces no answer, but through the door they hear a woman crying and a heavy thud. At 02:26 the senior officer forces the door. Inside, a woman sits on the floor with a split lip and a man, D, 31, stands over her holding the neck of a broken bottle. The officers subdue him and handcuff him at 02:31; he is arrested as a flagrant offender.
While one officer tends to the woman, the other opens a closed shoe cabinet in the entrance hall and finds a plastic bag containing 3.1 grams of methamphetamine, which he seizes. On the kitchen table in the same room the officers also take D's mobile phone without a warrant; a technician downloads 400 messages from it at 06:00.
D is given the right-to-counsel notice only at 05:40. At 05:50 he signs a written statement saying the drugs 'belong to someone else.' The woman declines to make a statement.
1. Was the forced entry at 02:26 lawful? Set out the reasoning a court would use and the facts the officers must be able to document.
Read the worked answer
Entry into premises is presumptively warrant-based, but the presumption yields where a person's life or bodily integrity is in immediate danger and there is no time to obtain a warrant.
At 02:26 the officers knew: a report of screaming and breaking glass; a locked door; no response to knocking; and, through the door, a woman crying and a heavy thud. Those facts support an objectively reasonable inference of violence in progress against a person who could not open the door herself. The intrusion was also limited in scope to its justification: forcing the door to reach and separate the people inside, not to search the premises. Announcing their presence, which the record should show, supports lawfulness.
The justification has an expiry point, and that matters for the rest of the case. Once D was handcuffed at 02:31 and the woman was being attended to, the emergency rationale no longer justified opening closed containers. The reason is not that the emergency 'ended' in some formal sense, but that the specific risk that justified the intrusion, immediate harm to a person, had been neutralised.
Documentation decides these challenges. The officers should record what they heard and when, when they knocked and announced, what they saw on entry and in what order, and when the handcuffs went on. Justification is judged on the facts known at the time, so a report written days later with the sequence blurred will lose the point.
2. D moves to suppress the methamphetamine. Assess the arguments for and against admissibility.
Read the worked answer
Against admissibility (the stronger position). The drugs were in a closed shoe cabinet, so the plain-view doctrine does not apply: the incriminating character of the contents was not apparent without opening it, and the officer did not come across the object inadvertently in the course of a lawful intrusion. The search-incident-to-arrest justification is also unavailable. That doctrine is confined to the arrestee's person and the area within his immediate control at the time of the arrest, meaning the area from which he might reach a weapon or destroy evidence. At the time of the search D was handcuffed, guarded, and separated from an entrance-hall cabinet. No consent was given and no warrant was obtained. The evidence was therefore obtained by an unlawful search.
Exceptions to test. The prosecution may try inevitable discovery, independent source, or consent. None is apparent: there was no independent line of investigation that would have led to the cabinet, and no lawful basis on which a warrant was already being sought. The exception will not be invented after the fact.
The argument the prosecution will make. If the cabinet stood within arm's reach of D at the moment of arrest and had not yet been secured, the officer may claim a protective sweep for weapons. That argument depends entirely on the geometry, on where D was standing when handcuffed, and on whether the cabinet was within his reach. Verify the layout and the photographs before writing the report; a sweep for weapons also does not authorise opening containers once the scene is under control.
Conclusion: suppress, unless the prosecution can establish that the cabinet was within D's immediate control at the time of the search or that consent was validly given.
3. Assess the seizure of the phone, the download of 400 messages at 06:00, and the 05:50 statement.
Read the worked answer
The phone. At the time of seizure D was handcuffed and guarded and the phone lay on the kitchen table, outside his immediate control. There was no warrant and no consent, so the seizure of the handset is unlawful on the same reasoning as the cabinet.
The download. Even if the handset had been lawfully seized, extracting stored messages is a separate and more intrusive measure. The contents of electronic communications are protected, and obtaining them requires a warrant directed to the messages themselves; the lawful possession of a device does not authorise reading its contents. A technician pulling 400 messages hours later, with no warrant, is an unlawful search, and the messages should be suppressed. The time gap also defeats any claim that the download was an incident of the arrest.
The statement. The right-to-counsel notice was given at 05:40, more than three hours after arrest, and the statement followed ten minutes later. The prosecution must prove that the notice was given, that D understood it, and that he waived the right voluntarily. A three-hour unexplained gap, followed by a ten-minute turnaround before a signature, invites the argument that the notice was a formality performed after the interview had effectively begun. If the notice was defective, the statement is inadmissible; if it was properly given and signed, the statement may be admitted but is weak evidence, since it is a partial denial rather than a confession.
Also check whether D was told he could have counsel present during interrogation, not merely that he could appoint one; the two notices are distinct.