Background

• Martinez I district ruling held warrantless home entry violated Fourth Amendment; Martinez II suppressed statements and evidence obtained from warrant-based search; government appeals asserting exigent circumstances justified entry; 911 static call and dispatcher's attempts to contact were central to the analysis; officers entered the unlocked back balcony door after seeing an unlocked sliding glass door and disheveled interior; no one was observed inside, no signs of forced entry, and officers spent about five minutes inside; evidence later used to obtain a search warrant and charges; district court findings were not challenged on factual grounds on appeal.
• The static 911 call from Martinez's residence produced no reliable basis that someone inside needed immediate aid due to line problems and lack of corroborating evidence; the officers observed no one inside or signs of distress.
• District court found the government's asserted exigent circumstances insufficient; the court stressed the burden on the government to prove exigent circumstances in a home entry and concluded the evidence was in equipoise and did not demonstrate an objectively reasonable belief of an emergency.
• Court notes distinction between static 911 calls and hangups; 911 calls are important but not determinative absent corroborating danger; the officers could not rely on the mere possibility of emergency.
• Court identifies that the burglary-in-progress theory was not properly raised below and the appeal does not rely on it as a basis for upholding the entry; McCullough and alarm-based cases are distinguishable from the static 911 context.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (emergency aid exception; warrantless entry permitted to aid imminent danger)
• Michigan v. Fisher, 130 S. Ct. 546 (2009) (emergency aid in home; no need for warrant)
• Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (home entry generally prohibited without warrant)
• Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (exigent circumstances limited; warrant required absent exceptions)
• United States v. Najar, 451 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2006) (911 calls and emergency belief; burden on government)
• United States v. Anderson, 981 F.2d 1560 (10th Cir. 1992) (exigent circumstances mixed question of law and fact)
• United States v. Davis, 290 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2002) (objective reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment)
• United States v. McCullough, 457 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 2006) (alarm-case distinguished; not controlling here)
• United States v. Porter, 594 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 2010) (reasonable belief standard is not absolute)