In Re Kh, 14 A.3d 1087

K.H. was adjudicated delinquent for armed robbery and possession of an imitation pistol based on events around Jan. 28, 2005.
Police entered apartment 3 at 1012 Harvard Street, NW, on Feb. 1, 2005 without a warrant during a pursuit of a suspected robber.
Ms. Shields testified K.H. was an overnight guest and sleeping in the apartment; police announced and searched the entire apartment.
Ms. Wolf identified K.H. as the man who attempted to rob her earlier; the police arrested and later questioned him; he admitted presence but denied participation.
The trial court found no consent to enter, but held K.H. had standing as an overnight guest; it did not resolve whether exigent circumstances justified the entry.
The court denied the suppression motion; on remand it found the taint from the Fourth Amendment violation did not extend to all evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless entry into a residence was justified by exigent circumstances	K.H. argues entry violated Fourth Amendment; exigent circumstances not proven	District contends pursuit of robber justified entry under exigent circumstances	Exigency not sufficiently proven; entry invalid under Fourth Amendment
Whether police had probable cause to believe the robber entered apartment three	Prosecution failed to show probable cause for entry	District claims probable cause existed based on overheard talk of arrest and running	Probable cause not proven by reliable, personal-knowledge evidence
Whether the taint from the unlawful entry tainted all evidence, including identifications and statements	Evidence derived from violation should be suppressed	Attenuation and independent sources may purge taint	Taint not dissipated; suppression required for identified evidence and statements
Whether Ms. Vo's in-court identification was admissible independent of the tainted identifications	In-court identification should be excluded if tainted	Crews allows independent recognition not tainted	In-court identification may be admissible if independent and not unduly influenced
Whether the improper admission of evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Given one-witness ID, tainted evidence could not be harmless	Remand allows evaluation of harmlessness	Not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal and new trial required

Crews v. United States, 445 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1980) (exclusionary taint framework; independent source rule)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (home entry requires probable cause or consent)
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (residential guests have limited privacy interests; standing issues)
United States v. Dawkins, 305 U.S. App. D.C. 83 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (probable cause standard for exigent-entry determinations; reliability concerns)
Lindsay, 165 U.S. App. D.C. 105 (U.S. App. D.C. 1974) (probable cause and scope of searches in apartment contexts)
Ellis v. United States, 941 A.2d 1042 (D.C. 2008) (reliability and sufficiency of in-court identifications; corroboration considerations)