Police Keep the Family Out of Their Own HOME for 8 Hours Because Their Teenage Son Overdosed.

Collect Call with Lawstache

After Corban Elmore’s teenage son suffered a drug overdose at Elmore’s home, law-enforcement officers secured the scene and prohibited anyone from entering the house. The officers then continued to investigate and allowed almost eight hours to elapse before applying for a search warrant. Once they had a warrant in hand, the officers searched Elmore’s home and discovered two firearms in his bedroom. Elmore entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. Because the eight-hour seizure of Elmore’s home was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and because the exclusionary rule requires suppression of the firearms, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “[T]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment,” as the text makes clear, “is ‘reasonableness.’” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 381–82 (2014) (quoting Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)). And reasonableness “generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant” before law-enforcement officers may search or seize a home. Id. at 382 (quoting Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995)). But not always—there are “a number of exceptions” to the warrant requirement. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438, 456 (2016). One such exception is for “exigent circumstances.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011). This exception applies “when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant.” Birchfield, 579 U.S. at 456. For example, “a police officer armed with probable cause to believe a home contains evidence of a serious crime that might otherwise be destroyed may lawfully secure the home and restrict entry while waiting for an assisting officer to diligently procure a search warrant.” United States v. Shrum, 908 F.3d 1219, 1231 (10th Cir. 2018). But even “a seizure reasonable at its inception” based on probable cause and exigency “may become unreasonable as a result of its duration or for other reasons.” Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 812 (1984).
In McArthur, the Court pointed to four “circumstances” supporting reasonableness. Id. at 331–32. The initial seizure was reasonable because the officers (1) “had probable cause to believe that .

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
[phone]
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...