Police barged into your home and seized what they told you was “evidence of a crime.” But they did so without a valid search warrant. The police said they did not need one because of “exigent circumstances.” What does that mean?
Exigent circumstances are situations that require swift or immediate action usually on the part of law enforcement or federal agents. This can serve as an exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers must have a valid warrant before they can conduct a search and seizure.
Courts typically say that exigent circumstances are present if a reasonable person would believe that quick action was necessary so that law enforcement could prevent:
- bodily harm to someone or the destruction of property,
- the destruction of evidence, or
- the escape of a suspect.
Judges usually make a ruling on exigent circumstances on a case-by-case basis after examining all of the facts in a case.
1. What are exigent circumstances?
In general, exigent circumstances are situations that demand unusual or immediate action.1
They usually exist in those scenarios where a police officer holds a reasonable belief that he/she has to act fast in order to prevent:
- imminent danger to someone or some property,
- the destruction of contraband or the evidence of a crime,
- a fleeing suspect from getting away.2
There is not one specific test for courts to determine whether exigent circumstances exist. They usually make a ruling on the matter by examining all of the facts of a case.3
Some factors that may lead a court to say that exigent circumstances exist are:
- evidence showing probable cause of a crime,
- the commission of a serious crime,
- a risk of destructibility of the evidence,
- an impracticability of obtaining a search warrant,
- a suspect was armed and planning to escape,
- a reasonable belief that someone’s life was threatened,
- a need to provide emergency aid to a “victim,” and
- police were in hot pursuit of a suspect.4
2. Do police need a search warrant if exigent circumstances?
Most often, no. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police may conduct a warrantless search if exigent circumstances are present.5
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable police intrusion. As such, law enforcement usually needs a valid search warrant before they can legally conduct a search and seize property.
But exceptions to this general rule do apply.6 One exception is the “exigent circumstances exception.”
According to this exception, police do not need to meet the warrant requirement if exigent circumstances are present.7
But note that even if exigent circumstances, a warrantless entry is only constitutional if probable cause exists.8
3. Can police seize anything if exigent circumstances?
No. While exigent circumstances give the police the authority to conduct a warrantless search of your home, they can only seize property that is in plain view.9
This is known as the “plain view doctrine.”
Consider, for example, the scenario where police enter your home after having:
- probable cause that you committed a crime, and
- a reasonable belief that you were going to flush drugs down your toilet.
Here, the police could legally seize drug paraphernalia that was on your bathroom counter. However, they could not legally search a bathroom drawer for evidence.
4. Are there exceptions to the arrest warrant requirement?
Yes. Law enforcement usually needs an arrest warrant in order to legally arrest you on the suspicion that you committed a crime.10
However, as with the search warrant requirement, exceptions do apply.
For example, police can conduct a warrantless arrest if they directly observe you commit a crime. This is true no matter if you committed a misdemeanor or a felony.
Most states also say that authorities can arrest you without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe you committed a felony offense. Here, a warrantless arrest is permissible even if the police themselves did not observe you commit the felony.
Legal References:
- Black Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition – “Exigent circumstances.”
- United States v. McConney, 728 F. 2d 1195, (9th Cir., 1984).
- See, for example, United States v. Anderson, 154 F. 3d 1225 (10th Cir, 1998).
- See the United States Supreme Court case of Missouri v McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013). See also United States v. Reed, 935 F. 2d 641 (4th Cir., 1991).
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006).
- See, for example, United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1983).
- See Lyman, D., Micheal. Criminal Investigation: The Art and the Science. 6th ed. Columbia College of Missouri. Pearson, 2010. p169.
- See same.
- See, for example, Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).
- See, for example, California Penal Code sections 813-816 and 1427 PC. See also People v. Robinson (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 1104.
