AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Officers entered the Defendant's apartment without a warrant following a 911 call from his ex-wife, who reported that the Defendant was intoxicated or on drugs, had mishandled their two-year-old child, and had drugs in the apartment. Upon entry, officers found methamphetamine and arrested the Defendant on multiple charges, including child abuse and possession of narcotics (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the warrantless entry into his apartment was not justified under the emergency assistance doctrine, seeking to suppress evidence discovered during the entry (para 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the officers were justified in their warrantless entry under the emergency assistance doctrine to ensure the child's safety (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the warrantless entry into the Defendant's apartment was justified under the emergency assistance doctrine.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals held that the warrantless entry was not justified under the emergency assistance doctrine and reversed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of the entry (para 21).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Michael E. Vigil and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring, the court found that the facts presented did not satisfy the requirements of the emergency assistance doctrine. The court reasoned that there was no obvious life-threatening emergency based on the information officers had from the dispatch and the Defendant's ex-wife. The officers knew the child had been pulled onto the floor but did not need an ambulance, and there was no evidence to suggest that the Defendant posed an imminent threat to the child or that there was an imminent danger to the child's life or limb. The court also noted that the officers' primary motivation for entering the home must be to protect human life in imminent danger, which was not satisfied in this case. The court concluded that the officers' warrantless entry was not justified by the emergency assistance doctrine, leading to the reversal of the district court's order denying the Defendant's motion to suppress (paras 6-21).