No, the police did not violate the rules. It was okay for them to break in without a warrant because it was a true emergency. The situation was dangerous (drugs and guns), the evidence could have been flushed down the toilet, and the suspects were trying to escape. The police acted properly by knocking first. It's not the police's fault that the criminals panicked and created an emergency; the police were just doing their jobs lawfully.

Yes, the police violated the rules. There was no real emergency until the police showed up and announced themselves. The drug dealers had been operating for months and didn't know the cops were watching. The police basically created the emergency on purpose so they would have an excuse to break in without getting a warrant, which is what they should have done. They even brought a battering ram, showing they planned to force their way in all along.

Yes, it was an emergency that allowed the police to go in without a warrant. The situation was serious because of the ongoing drug dealing, loaded guns, danger to the police and public, the suspects realizing the police were there and trying to run away, and the need to stop evidence from being destroyed. The police tried to go in peacefully first, following the law. They didn't cause the emergency themselves, because criminals are expected to react badly even when police follow the law. If police follow the law, they aren't creating an emergency.

I disagree. The facts don't show it was an emergency before the police went back and announced who they were. Just having a good reason to suspect a crime isn't the same as an emergency. The majority focuses on how serious the crime was and that there were guns, but that alone doesn't make it an emergency. The suspects had no idea they were being watched and there was no real reason to think they would destroy evidence right then. The emergency only happened after the police went back in a way that warned the suspects. It looks like the police did this on purpose to avoid getting a warrant. The majority's decision wrongly lets police create their own emergencies and weakens our rights against unreasonable searches, especially in drug cases.

The essential question in determining whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry is whether law enforcement agents were confronted by an `urgent need'to render aid or take action

—the gravity or violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged;(2) whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed;(3) a clear showing of probable cause to believe that the suspect committed the crime;(4) strong reason to believe the that the suspect is in the premises being entered;(5) a likelihood that suspect will escape if not swiftly …

The " `test'"for exigent circumstances is" `an objective one that turns on the district court's examination of the totality of circumstances confronting law enforcement agents in the particular case.'"

—and "[a] district court's determination as to whether exigent circumstances existed is fact-specific, and will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous."

—holding that when law enforcement agents act in an entirely lawful manner, they do not impermissibly create exigent circumstances

—a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended; and (6) the peaceful circumstances of the entry.

"[T] he test for determining whether a warrantless entry is justified by exigent circumstances is an objective one."

—permits law enforcement to enter a home without a warrant to provide assistance, or effect a search or seizure under specified conditions.

—holding that undercover agent's observation of cocaine and marijuana in plain view throughout an apartment containing six men provided probable cause for warrantless arrest of all six occupants

No, the warrantless entry does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was justified by exigent circumstances that were not impermissibly created by the law enforcement agents. The test for determining whether exigent circumstances exist is an objective one based on the totality of the circumstances confronting law enforcement. Here, numerous factors created an urgent need to act, including the gravity of the ongoing narcotics offenses, the presence of loaded firearms, the high probability of evidence destruction, and the confirmed risk of escape. The agents' conduct in knocking and announcing their presence was lawful, and exigent circumstances are not to be disregarded simply because suspects react to lawful police conduct by attempting to flee or destroy evidence. Law enforcement agents do not impermissibly create exigencies when they act in an entirely lawful manner.

Yes, the warrantless entry violates the Fourth Amendment because any exigent circumstances were deliberately created by the agents to circumvent the warrant requirement. Prior to the agents knocking on the door, there was probable cause but no 'urgent need' to act; the suspects were unaware of the surveillance and the operation had been ongoing for months. The agents' return to the apartment, armed with a battering ram, was a pretext to precipitate a crisis. It was not objectively reasonable to believe the armed suspects would consent to a search, meaning the agents must be regarded as having deliberately created the exigency. The court should not endorse such contrivances by law enforcement to bypass the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

Yes, exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry because the totality of circumstances presented an urgent need for the agents to act. The gravity of the ongoing narcotics trafficking, the presence of loaded weapons, the clear threat of danger to the agents and public, the suspects' awareness of the police presence and their attempt to escape, and the need to prevent destruction of evidence all contributed to the exigency. The agents acted lawfully by first attempting a peaceful entry in accordance with the law. They did not impermissibly create exigent circumstances, as suspects cannot be expected to respond lawfully to lawful police conduct. When law enforcement agents act in an entirely lawful manner, they do not impermissibly create exigent circumstances.

I respectfully dissent because the record does not support a finding of exigent circumstances prior to the agents' return and announcement of their presence. Probable cause is not equivalent to exigency. The majority relies heavily on factors like the gravity of the offense and presence of firearms, but these alone do not create an emergency situation. The suspects were totally unaware of the ongoing surveillance and there was no objective reason to believe evidence would be imminently destroyed. The exigency only arose after the agents deliberately returned to the apartment in a way that alerted the suspects. This appears to be a pretext to circumvent the warrant requirement. The majority's ruling improperly allows agents to create their own exigencies and erodes Fourth Amendment protections in narcotics cases.

United States v. MacDonald

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot