exigent circumstances exception in Virginia

2019“The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search [or seizure] is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Commonwealth v. Campbell, 294 Va. 486, 493 (2017) (quoting Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459 (2011) (some internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied sub nom.

2018As correctly noted by our Supreme Court in Campbell I, the exigent circumstances exception “applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Campbell I, 294 Va. at 493 , 807 S.E.2d at 738 (quoting King, 563 U.S. at 460 ) (some internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

2019“The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search [or seizure] is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Commonwealth v. Campbell, 294 Va. 486, 493 (2017) (quoting Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459 (2011) (some internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied sub nom.

2018As correctly noted by our Supreme Court in Campbell I, the exigent circumstances exception “applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Campbell I, 294 Va. at 493 , 807 S.E.2d at 738 (quoting King, 563 U.S. at 460 ) (some internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

2021Accordingly, “the exigent circumstances exception allows a warrantless search when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant.” Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2173 (2016).

2017Appellant overstates the holding of Birchfield, arguing that “Birchfield now requires a search warrant for the extraction of blood in drunk driving cases.” In fact, the Birchfield Court was careful to note that a warrantless blood draw is still constitutionally sound where an exception to the warrant requirement applies and that “[n]othing prevents the police . . . from relying on the exigent circumstances exception.” Id. at 2184 .

2019"We leave for resolution on remand," the Court stated, "whether Officer Rhodes' warrantless intrusion on the curtilage of Collins' house may have been reasonable on a different basis, such as the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement." Id. at 1675 .

2019Upon reversing this Court's earlier opinion holding that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement applied in this case, the United States Supreme Court specifically stated that "[w]e leave for resolution on remand whether Officer Rhodes' warrantless intrusion on the curtilage of Collins' house may have been reasonable on a different basis, such as the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement ." Collins v. Virginia , 584 U.S. ----, 138 S. Ct. at 1670, 1675 (2018) (emphasis added). "[W]arrants are generally required to search a person's home or his person unless the

1992In Verez v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 405, 410-411 , 337 S.E.2d 749 (1985), where police entered a motel room without a warrant and seized illegal drugs (a felony), the Supreme Court of Virginia discussed the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment and specifically relied upon Welsh'.

1992In Verez v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 405, 410-411 , 337 S.E.2d 749 (1985), where police entered a motel room without a warrant and seized illegal drugs (a felony), the Supreme Court of Virginia discussed the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment and specifically relied upon Welsh'.

2018Essentially, it “allows a warrantless search when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant.” Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2173 (2016) (referencing Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978)) (emphasis added); see also Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771 (1966) (upholding a warrantless search when “there was no time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant”).

2018Essentially, it “allows a warrantless search when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant.” Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2173 (2016) (referencing Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978)) (emphasis added); see also Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771 (1966) (upholding a warrantless search when “there was no time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant”).

2018Essentially, it “allows a warrantless search when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant.” Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2173 (2016) (referencing Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978)) (emphasis added); see also Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771 (1966) (upholding a warrantless search when “there was no time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant”).

2018Essentially, it “allows a warrantless search when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant.” Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2173 (2016) (referencing Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978)) (emphasis added); see also Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771 (1966) (upholding a warrantless search when “there was no time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant”).

2018The Collins Court made clear that a warrantless arrest or search within the curtilage of a home does not per se violate the Fourth Amendment. “‘[E]ach case of alleged exigency’ that would justify a warrantless entry turns ‘on its own facts and circumstances.’” Evans v. Commonwealth, 290 Va. 277, 292 , 776 S.E.2d 760, 767-68 (2015) (quoting Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 150 (2014)).

2017See McNeely, 569 U.S. at 151-52 .

2018Judicial restraint commands that courts decide cases “on the best and narrowest ground available.” Commonwealth v. Swan, 290 Va. 194, 196 , 776 S.E.2d 265, 267 (2015) (quoting McGhee v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 620 , 626 n.4, 701 S.E.2d 58 , 61 n.4 (2010)).

2018Judicial restraint commands that courts decide cases “on the best and narrowest ground available.” Commonwealth v. Swan, 290 Va. 194, 196 , 776 S.E.2d 265, 267 (2015) (quoting McGhee v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 620 , 626 n.4, 701 S.E.2d 58 , 61 n.4 (2010)).

2005“When officers conduct an emergency entry for purposes of investigating a crime, the emergency is considered an ‘exigency’ for purposes of the exigent circumstances exception, and the officers must have probable cause before they can enter the residence.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Thornton, 24 Va. App. 478, 484 , 483 S.E.2d 487, 490 (1997) (recognizing that, “among the circumstances accepted as providing ‘exigent circumstances’ for a warrantless search, are those where a true ‘emergency’ exists”)).

2005“When officers conduct an emergency entry for purposes of investigating a crime, the emergency is considered an ‘exigency’ for purposes of the exigent circumstances exception, and the officers must have probable cause before they can enter the residence.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Thornton, 24 Va. App. 478, 484 , 483 S.E.2d 487, 490 (1997) (recognizing that, “among the circumstances accepted as providing ‘exigent circumstances’ for a warrantless search, are those where a true ‘emergency’ exists”)).

2026“This Court has previously upheld the warrantless seizure of firearms in plain view from a vehicle when those firearms posed a potential threat to officer -5- safety.” Moore, 69 Va. App. at 38 (citing cases relying on the exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement).

2026“This Court has previously upheld the warrantless seizure of firearms in plain view from a vehicle when those firearms posed a potential threat to officer safety.” Moore, 69 Va. App. at 38 (citing cases relying on the exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement).

2019Upon reversing this Court's earlier opinion holding that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement applied in this case, the United States Supreme Court specifically stated that "[w]e leave for resolution on remand whether Officer Rhodes' warrantless intrusion on the curtilage of Collins' house may have been reasonable on a different basis, such as the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement ." Collins v. Virginia , 584 U.S. ----, 138 S. Ct. at 1670, 1675 (2018) (emphasis added). "[W]arrants are generally required to search a person's home or his person unless the

2019Upon reversing this Court's earlier opinion holding that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement applied in this case, the United States Supreme Court specifically stated that "[w]e leave for resolution on remand whether Officer Rhodes' warrantless intrusion on the curtilage of Collins' house may have been reasonable on a different basis, such as the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement ." Collins v. Virginia , 584 U.S. ----, 138 S. Ct. at 1670, 1675 (2018) (emphasis added). "[W]arrants are generally required to search a person's home or his person unless the

2019Upon reversing this Court's earlier opinion holding that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement applied in this case, the United States Supreme Court specifically stated that "[w]e leave for resolution on remand whether Officer Rhodes' warrantless intrusion on the curtilage of Collins' house may have been reasonable on a different basis, such as the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement ." Collins v. Virginia , 584 U.S. ----, 138 S. Ct. at 1670, 1675 (2018) (emphasis added). "[W]arrants are generally required to search a person's home or his person unless the

2019Upon reversing this Court's earlier opinion holding that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement applied in this case, the United States Supreme Court specifically stated that "[w]e leave for resolution on remand whether Officer Rhodes' warrantless intrusion on the curtilage of Collins' house may have been reasonable on a different basis, such as the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement ." Collins v. Virginia , 584 U.S. ----, 138 S. Ct. at 1670, 1675 (2018) (emphasis added). "[W]arrants are generally required to search a person's home or his person unless the

2005Citing Hill v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 1 , 441 S.E.2d 50 (1994), a case in which a panel of this Court authorized a warrantless entry premised on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, the majority concludes that “something more” was needed here.

2005Citing Hill v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 1 , 441 S.E.2d 50 (1994), a case in which a panel of this Court authorized a warrantless entry premised on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, the majority concludes that “something more” was needed here.

2025See, e.g., id. at 402-03 (citing Gilmore, 27 Va. App. at 330-31 ); King v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 717, 726 (2007); Moss, 30 Va. App. at 226 .

2025See, e.g., id. at 402-03 (citing Gilmore, 27 Va. App. at 330-31 ); King v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 717, 726 (2007); Moss, 30 Va. App. at 226 .

2025See, e.g., id. at 402-03 (citing Gilmore, 27 Va. App. at 330-31 ); King v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 717, 726 (2007); Moss, 30 Va. App. at 226 .

2025E.g., United States v. Burton, 756 F. App’x 295 , 298 (4th Cir. 2018) (“As an exception to the general warrant requirement, law enforcement officers may seize an item without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe that the item contains contraband or evidence of a crime, and ‘the exigencies of the circumstances demand it.’” (quoting United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 (1983))); United cause.” Appellee does not advance any argument or cite any caselaw related to these issues.

2023In Poindexter, we noted that “if the police have probable cause to effect an arrest, a limited search may be justified even in the absence of a formal arrest.” 16 Va. App. at 733 (citing Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 295-96 (1973)).

2021The exigent circumstances exception “One well-recognized exception applies when ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Ross, 61 Va. App. at 759 (quoting Washington v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 427, 436 (2012)).

2018See Code § 46.2-817. 2 In Collins, the Court found that “[j]ust like the front porch, side garden, or area ‘outside the front window,’ the driveway enclosure where [the police] searched the motorcycle constitutes ‘an area adjacent to the home and “to which the activity of home life extends,”’ and so is properly considered curtilage.” 138 S. Ct. at 1671 (quoting Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6-7 (2013)). -5- been reasonable on a different basis, such as the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.”3 Id. at 1675. “[I]t is a ‘settled rule that warrantless arrests in public p

2018See Code § 46.2-817. 2 In Collins, the Court found that “[j]ust like the front porch, side garden, or area ‘outside the front window,’ the driveway enclosure where [the police] searched the motorcycle constitutes ‘an area adjacent to the home and “to which the activity of home life extends,”’ and so is properly considered curtilage.” 138 S. Ct. at 1671 (quoting Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6-7 (2013)). -5- been reasonable on a different basis, such as the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.”3 Id. at 1675. “[I]t is a ‘settled rule that warrantless arrests in public p

2018The Collins Court made clear that a warrantless arrest or search within the curtilage of a home does not per se violate the Fourth Amendment. “‘[E]ach case of alleged exigency’ that would justify a warrantless entry turns ‘on its own facts and circumstances.’” Evans v. Commonwealth, 290 Va. 277, 292 , 776 S.E.2d 760, 767-68 (2015) (quoting Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 150 (2014)).

2018The Collins Court made clear that a warrantless arrest or search within the curtilage of a home does not per se violate the Fourth Amendment. “‘[E]ach case of alleged exigency’ that would justify a warrantless entry turns ‘on its own facts and circumstances.’” Evans v. Commonwealth, 290 Va. 277, 292 , 776 S.E.2d 760, 767-68 (2015) (quoting Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 150 (2014)).

2018See Code § 46.2-817. 2 In Collins, the Court found that “[j]ust like the front porch, side garden, or area ‘outside the front window,’ the driveway enclosure where [the police] searched the motorcycle constitutes ‘an area adjacent to the home and “to which the activity of home life extends,”’ and so is properly considered curtilage.” 138 S. Ct. at 1671 (quoting Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6-7 (2013)). -5- been reasonable on a different basis, such as the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.”3 Id. at 1675. “[I]t is a ‘settled rule that warrantless arrests in public p