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.
- 15 -
Pearson fails to point to any authority in which a mere theoretical strain on dispatch and law
enforcement resources was found to constitute an exigency rendering warrantless entry of a home
reasonable.
Properly understood, the urgency inquiry is focused on whether there
is an emergency situation, such as continuing criminal activity, a
person requiring medical care, or the destruction of evidence, that
likely will worsen if the officers take the time necessary to get a
warrant. To the extent it appears that there is no imminent change to
the circumstances about to occur and that the status quo largely can
be maintained while the officers seek a warrant, the situation is not
‘urgent’ for the purposes of an exigency analysis.
White, 73 Va. App. at 556-57.
Moreover, when considered on a sliding scale, under the totality of the circumstances, the
situation here was not so urgent that it constituted an exigency justifying a warrantless entry of the
home. The emergency created was largely theoretical. No evidence was presented that any person
required medical attention; there was no concern that evidence would be destroyed; there was no
risk that the status quo would change. Although Berry could have been expected to continue
engaging in the criminal activity of making false reports to law enforcement, the danger posed by
this is minimal compared to that posed by crimes of violence. There was no indication the situation
would worsen if the police had taken the time to obtain a warrant. Thus, the situation here did not
create an exigency rendering warrantless entry of Berry’s home reasonable.
Since Santana is not controlling and there was no exigent circumstance requiring immediate
entry, regardless of whether Pearson possessed probable cause to arrest Berry for making a false
report to law enforcement, his attempted arrest was unconstitutional. Further, since the trial court
did not err by holding as a matter of law that Pearson’s entry into the home and attempted arrest of
Berry were unlawful, the jury instructions flowing from that holding were not given in error. The
objected to jury instructions were accurate statements of law, and the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in giving them to the jury. Jump to an indexed page (18 of 18)