United States v. Luis Delgado
701 F.3d 1161
7th Cir.2012Background
- Milwaukee officers responded to gunshots; Delgado ran from alley toward a building and was initially identifiable; a witness said Aviles was shot and hiding in Delgado’s apartment; officers knocked, Aviles and Delgado exited, Aviles had a wrist graze, no one indicated the shooter was inside; officers entered Delgado’s apartment without a warrant and seized firearms; Delgado was charged with felon in possession and unregistered firearm; magistrate and district court found no exigent circumstances but treated the entry as a valid protective sweep; Delgado pled guilty under a conditional plea and appealed suppression denial.
- Delgado appeals suppression ruling arguing warrantless entry was invalid; government concedes no protective sweep and contends exigent circumstances existed due to potential shooter in the apartment; court agrees no exigent circumstances from the record; reversal of suppression denial and remand for dismissal/clearance consistent with decision.
- The court held the government failed to show exigent circumstances; the mere possibility of a shooter in the apartment is insufficient without affirmative indications; suppression reversal and remand to grant suppression motion and dismiss/modify proceedings accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search | Delgado | Delgado not provided; government argued exigent circumstances due to shooter | No; exigent circumstances not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Arch v. United States, 7 F.3d 1300 (7th Cir. 1993) (signals of violence insufficient to prove exigency without affirmative signs)
- Ellis v. United States, 499 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2007) (general movement noises do not automatically indicate evidence is about to be destroyed)
- Hanson v. Dane Cty., 608 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2010) (victim’s silence during police entry does not negate earlier indications of danger)
- Jenkins v. United States, 329 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2003) (911 call and noises from within home not inherently dispositive of exigency)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (S. Ct. 2006) (protective action allowed to prevent imminent injury in home)
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (exigent circumstances exception requires reasonableness without time to obtain warrant)