United States v. Donald P. Rohrig
98 F.3d 1506, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28274, 1996 WL 627521 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless entry into a private residence by police officers may be justified by the exigent circumstance of needing to abate an ongoing and highly intrusive nuisance, such as loud music in the middle of the night, which disturbs the peace of the neighborhood.
Facts:
- In the early morning of May 22, 1994, Canton police officers John Clark and Walter Tucker received a complaint about loud music coming from the home of Donald P. Rohrig.
- Upon arrival at 1:39 a.m., the officers could hear the music from a block away and were met by several complaining neighbors.
- Officer Clark banged on the front door and tapped on first-floor windows with his flashlight but received no response.
- Clark then walked to the back of the house and discovered the back door was open, with only an unlocked screen door closed.
- After knocking and shouting at the back door to announce their presence with no answer, the officers entered the home through the unlocked screen door and open back door.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald P. Rohrig was charged in federal court with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun.
- Rohrig filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrantless entry into his home violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio conducted an evidentiary hearing and granted Rohrig's motion to suppress.
- The Government, as the appellant, appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless entry by police into a private residence to abate a loud music nuisance violate the Fourth Amendment when officers have been unable to get a response from an occupant?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosen, D.J.
No, the warrantless entry does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officers' conduct was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The court found that an ongoing and highly intrusive breach of a neighborhood's peace in the middle of the night constitutes an exigent circumstance. This is justified by balancing the compelling governmental interest in its 'community caretaking function' to preserve peace against the defendant's diminished expectation of privacy, which he weakened by projecting loud noise into the community. The court reasoned that requiring a warrant would force the community to endure the nuisance for an extended period, and the officers' escalating actions—from knocking to entering through an open door—were a reasonable response to the situation.
Dissenting - Daughtrey, J.
Yes, the warrantless entry violates the Fourth Amendment because abating a noise nuisance does not rise to the level of an exigent circumstance that justifies disregarding the warrant requirement. The dissent argues that the majority elevates the Fourth Amendment's 'reasonableness' clause above the warrant requirement, ignoring that true exigencies involve imminent, serious harm like a fleeing felon, destruction of evidence, or danger to persons. By treating a noise complaint as an exigency, the majority creates a broad 'nuisance abatement' exception that dangerously undermines the sanctity of the home and reduces the warrant requirement to a 'virtual nullity'.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the 'exigent circumstances' exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement by recognizing the abatement of a nuisance as a potential exigency. It introduces a 'community caretaking' rationale for warrantless home entries, shifting the analysis away from purely criminal investigation contexts. The court establishes a balancing test that weighs the government's interest in community peace against a resident's diminished privacy expectations due to their own disruptive conduct. This precedent may be used in future cases to justify warrantless entries for other non-violent, non-criminal disturbances, potentially lowering the threshold for police to enter a private home.
