State v. Linder, 2016 Ohio 3435

On Oct. 5, 2014, M.B. called her father saying she felt suicidal and asked him to meet her at a hospital; she later missed the meeting. Father reported she was heroin-addicted and had prior suicide attempts.
Police triangulated M.B.’s phone to near North Howard and Cuyahoga Falls Ave.; father learned a neighbor had seen M.B. earlier with two people and that her car was parked behind a yellow house at 803 N. Howard.
Officer Hackathorn went to the house to check welfare, requested backup because the house was suspected of drug activity and possible occupants with warrants, and set up a perimeter.
A man briefly opened a side door, froze on seeing the officer, then retreated and shut the door. Hackathorn announced “police,” forced the door open, made protective sweeps, observed a shotgun and drug paraphernalia in plain view, and found M.B. hiding on the third floor trembling and hazy.
Officers secured M.B., obtained a search warrant based on what was seen during the sweeps, searched the house, and indicted Kyle Linder on drug and weapons charges. Linder moved to suppress; the trial court denied suppression. On appeal, the Ninth District affirmed, holding exigent/caretaking circumstances justified the warrantless entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Linder)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether warrantless entry/search of Linder’s home was justified by exigent (emergency-aid/community-caretaking) circumstances	Entry was unconstitutional; police lacked objective, imminent basis to believe someone inside needed immediate aid and no time existed to get a warrant	Officers reasonably believed M.B. was in immediate danger (suicidal, heroin user, car at the house, occupant’s furtive retreat) so exigent circumstances justified entry	Affirmed: Court held circumstances objectively supported officer’s belief that immediate entry was necessary to protect life and prevent serious injury; exigent exception applied

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of review for suppression findings)
State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 2012) (describing emergency-aid/community-caretaking exception)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (exigency to assist persons seriously injured or threatened)
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (warrant requirement may be excused when compelling need and no time to secure warrant)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable; exigent exceptions narrowly construed)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (heightened protection for homes under Fourth Amendment)
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (U.S. 2001) (entry into home is particularly intrusive compared to stops)