People v. Pou
B269349M
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 23, 2017Background
- LAPD officers responded with lights/siren to a radio call of a “screaming woman” and “distressed moaning” reported for 2314 Jupiter Drive at ~12:10 p.m. and arrived with a sergeant already on scene.
- From outside the residence officers heard very loud arguing (male and female voices); one officer saw two males inside gesturing as if arguing.
- Officers knocked, identified themselves multiple times, and defendant repeatedly refused consent to enter; officers nonetheless made a warrantless entry to check for victims.
- Inside, officers found two females on a couch (checked and deemed “okay”) and conducted a quick sweep of the large house for other occupants; while looking they opened a closet and observed suspected narcotics.
- Narcotics unit was called, obtained a search warrant, and seized cocaine, MDMA/methylone, scales, cash, and a handgun in a safe.
- Follow-up revealed the 911 caller (an Uber driver) had meant a house across the street; officers had responded to the address shown on the radio dispatch and to the location where arguing was heard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless entry was lawful under the emergency-aid exception | Entry was justified because officers had an objectively reasonable belief someone inside needed immediate aid based on dispatch and audible/visual signs of an ongoing violent dispute | Entry was unlawful because officers lacked probable cause and later learned the call concerned a different house | Court: Entry and search were reasonable under the emergency-aid exception (Brigham City/Fisher/Troyer standard) |
| Whether scope of the search (including closets/upstairs) exceeded emergency needs | Scope was limited to places where a victim or assailant could be hiding in a very large house | Defendant: further search exceeded exigency because occupants encountered in living room were checked and no victim was found there | Court: Scope was reasonable and tied to locating additional victims/suspects; search places where a body could be found was permissible |
| Whether mistake about the correct address invalidates the search | Officers reasonably relied on the dispatch address and on corroborating signs (arguing at that address); a later discovery that the call was across the street does not negate the objectively reasonable basis at the time | Defendant: searching wrong house after dispatcher knew correct location shows lack of reasonable basis | Court: Hindsight about dispatcher information does not defeat the objective reasonableness of officers’ belief at the time; mistake of fact is permissible if reasonable |
| Whether officers’ reasonable but mistaken beliefs require suppression of evidence | Plaintiff: reasonable mistakes in emergencies may be made; exclusion not warranted when entry objectively reasonable | Defendant: evidence should be suppressed because entry/search were unlawful | Court: Evidence admissible; emergency-aid exception applies and the exclusionary rationale is not triggered by an objectively reasonable mistake |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (warrantless entry permitted when officers have objectively reasonable basis to believe an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened)
- Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (2009) (clarifies officers need not have ironclad proof; emergency-aid requires only an objectively reasonable belief someone needs immediate aid)
- People v. Troyer, 51 Cal.4th 599 (2011) (California Supreme Court: emergency-aid exception allows reasonable mistakes and justifies entry/search to locate victims/suspects; scope limited to where a body could be)
- Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (1971) (good-faith factual mistakes can validate an otherwise proper arrest/search)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule does not apply where law enforcement negligence, not systemic error, caused the mistake)
- Causey v. City of Bay City, 442 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2006) (upholds emergency search where assurances of no injury may be misleading or concealment)
- People v. Ormonde, 143 Cal.App.4th 282 (2006) (distinguishes cases where officers had no reasonable basis to believe other victims/suspects were inside)
- People v. Espino, 247 Cal.App.4th 746 (2016) (upholds arrests/searches based on reasonable mistakes of fact)