State v. Peck, 2014 Ohio 2820

Peck was convicted of Possession of Heroin after a warrantless entry into Peck's hotel room.
The suppression motion claimed the entry and search were illegal absent a warrant and exigent circumstances.
Police were responding to a report that a male in Room 205 threatened a person with a gun; multiple witnesses corroborated threats.
When the door to Room 205 opened, a female allowed officers to view Peck near the bed as he made a diving/lunging motion toward the floor.
Officers entered for safety, frisked Peck, and felt a bulge later determined to be heroin; Peters consented to search the room.
The room was registered to Samantha Peters, and both Peters and Peck were listed as guests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry into the hotel room	Peck argues there were no exigent circumstances to justify entry.	Peck contends the entry was unlawful absent a warrant and actual danger.	Exigent circumstances existed to permit entry.

State v. Burchett, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20166, 2004-Ohio-3095 (Ohio) (exigent circumstances; officer safety justify warrantless intrusion)
State v. Barber, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19017, 2002 WL 1393556 (Ohio) (guns suspected near drugs; not fully on point but supports intrusion)
State v. Orr, 91 Ohio St.3d 389, 745 N.E.2d 1036 (2001) (Ohio) (fourth amendment search must attach reasonable expectation of privacy exception)
State v. Sharpe, 174 Ohio App.3d 498, 2008-Ohio-267, 882 N.E.2d 960 (Ohio) (risk to officer safety supports exigent entry; gun presence alone not sufficient)
State v. Price, 134 Ohio App.3d 464, 467, 731 N.E.2d 280 (9th Dist.1999) (Ohio) (recognizes presence of exigent circumstances as exception to warrant requirement)
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 104 S. Ct. 2091, 80 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1984) (U.S.) (exigent circumstances exception burden on State to show danger/risk)