This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 13 -
Further, unlike Santana, there was no concern that unless an arrest was made speedily,
evidence of the crime would be lost. Id. at 43 (“Once Santana saw the police, there was likewise a
realistic expectation that any delay would result in destruction of evidence.”). Instead, call records
and witness testimony constituting evidence of the alleged false reports were entirely safe from any
destruction by Berry.
Because Berry was in the constitutionally protected sphere of his home when the arrest was
initiated, there was no pursuit beginning in a public place, and there was no fear that Berry could
destroy evidence, this case is distinguishable from and not governed by Santana. Rather, for the
same preceding reasons, Pearson’s attempted arrest was in violation of Berry’s Fourth Amendment
rights.
Alternatively, Pearson argues that entry of the apartment was justified by the presence of
exigent circumstances. We also find this reasoning unavailing.
The exigent circumstances “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.” White v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 535, 553 (2021) (quoting
Ross, 61 Va. App. at 759). There is no “final and comprehensive list of all exigent circumstances
which might justify a warrantless entry.” Verez v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 405, 410 (1985).
However, the Supreme Court has recognized several considerations relevant to determining if an
exigency exists justifying warrantless entry of the home:
(1) the degree of urgency involved and the time required to get a
warrant; (2) the officers’ reasonable belief that contraband is about to
be removed or destroyed; (3) the possibility of danger to others,
including police officers left to guard the site; (4) information that the
possessors of the contraband are aware that the police may be on
their trail; (5) whether the offense is serious, or involves violence;
(6) whether officers reasonably believe the suspects are armed;
(7) whether there is, at the time of entry, a clear showing of probable
cause; (8) whether the officers have a strong reason to believe the
suspects are actually present in the premises; (9) the likelihood of Jump to an indexed page (18 of 18)