15 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Fordegreen2 sentences2019"Under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, 'there must be a showing that it was impracticable for the police to obtain a warrant, and the standards as to exigency are strict.' " Id . at 97 , 112 N.E.3d 796 , quoting Commonwealth v. Forde , 367 Mass. 798 , 800, 329 N.E.2d 717 (1975). 2019"Under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, 'there must be a showing that it was impracticable for the police to obtain a warrant, and the standards as to exigency are strict.' " Id . at 97 , 112 N.E.3d 796 , quoting Commonwealth v. Forde , 367 Mass. 798 , 800, 329 N.E.2d 717 (1975). | 3 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. DeJesusgreen2 sentences2019"In the absence of a warrant, two conditions must be met in order for a nonconsensual entry to be valid" under the exigent circumstances doctrine: (1) "there must be probable cause" and (2) "there must be exigent circumstances." Commonwealth v. DeJesus , 439 Mass. 616 , 619, 790 N.E.2d 231 (2003). 2019"In the absence of a warrant, two conditions must be met in order for a nonconsensual entry to be valid" under the exigent circumstances doctrine: (1) "there must be probable cause" and (2) "there must be exigent circumstances." Commonwealth v. DeJesus , 439 Mass. 616 , 619, 790 N.E.2d 231 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Tyreegreen2 sentences2019Pursuant to both art. 14 and the Fourth Amendment, the exigent circumstances doctrine establishes another "well-recognized," King , 563 U.S. at 460 , 131 S.Ct. 1849 , yet "narrow" exception to the warrant requirement, see Tyree , 455 Mass. at 691 , 919 N.E.2d 660 . 2019Pursuant to both art. 14 and the Fourth Amendment, the exigent circumstances doctrine establishes another "well-recognized," King , 563 U.S. at 460 , 131 S.Ct. 1849 , yet "narrow" exception to the warrant requirement, see Tyree , 455 Mass. at 691 , 919 N.E.2d 660 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Figueroagreen2 sentences2019See Commonwealth v. Figueroa , 468 Mass. 204 , 211-212, 9 N.E.3d 812 (2014). 2019See Commonwealth v. Figueroa , 468 Mass. 204 , 211-212, 9 N.E.3d 812 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Younggreen2 sentences2019See also Commonwealth v. Young , 382 Mass. 448 , 456, 416 N.E.2d 944 (1981) ("Exigencies which may justify a procedure **615 without warrant are a narrow category and must be established by the Commonwealth ..."); Commonwealth v. Forde , 367 Mass. 798 , 800, 329 N.E.2d 717 (1975) ("the standards as to exigency are strict"). 2019See also Commonwealth v. Young , 382 Mass. 448 , 456, 416 N.E.2d 944 (1981) ("Exigencies which may justify a procedure **615 without warrant are a narrow category and must be established by the Commonwealth ..."); Commonwealth v. Forde , 367 Mass. 798 , 800, 329 N.E.2d 717 (1975) ("the standards as to exigency are strict"). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 1663green1 sentence2015Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1224 (2011) (“the exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless home entries when officers reasonably believe that some actor or object in a house may immediately cause harm to persons or property not in or near the house” [emphasis in original]); Mora v. Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216, 225-226 (4th Cir. 2008) (placing search of home of detained man who had threatened his coworkers squarely within emergency exception, despite his not being home, as “[t]he authority to defuse a threat in an emergency nece | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. McCarthygreen2 sentences2015See also Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 591, 594-595 (2008) (denying motion to suppress evidence found in defendant’s handbag when officer believed it may have contained cause of her overdose). 2015See also Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 591, 594-595 (2008) (denying motion to suppress evidence found in defendant's handbag when officer believed it may have contained cause for her overdose). 8 b. | 1 | 1 |
Mora v. City of Gaithersburg, Md.green2 sentences2015Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1224 (2011) (“the exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless home entries when officers reasonably believe that some actor or object in a house may immediately cause harm to persons or property not in or near the house” [emphasis in original]); Mora v. Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216, 225-226 (4th Cir. 2008) (placing search of home of detained man who had threatened his coworkers squarely within emergency exception, despite his not being home, as “[t]he authority to defuse a threat in an emergency nece 2015Consequently, the motion judge did not err in concluding that the officers were seizing the bottles in response to an emergency that encompassed both the condition of the defendant who was being taken to the hospital and the condition of the patients who were already there. (2011) (holding that "the exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless home entries when officers reasonably believe that some actor or object in a house may immediately cause harm to persons or property not in or near the house" [emphasis in original]); Mora v. Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216, 225-226 (4th Cir. 2008) (pl | 1 | 1 |
United States v. George Steven Mayesgreen2 sentences2015Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1224 (2011) (“the exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless home entries when officers reasonably believe that some actor or object in a house may immediately cause harm to persons or property not in or near the house” [emphasis in original]); Mora v. Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216, 225-226 (4th Cir. 2008) (placing search of home of detained man who had threatened his coworkers squarely within emergency exception, despite his not being home, as “[t]he authority to defuse a threat in an emergency nece 2015Consequently, the motion judge did not err in concluding that the officers were seizing the bottles in response to an emergency that encompassed both the condition of the defendant who was being taken to the hospital and the condition of the patients who were already there. (2011) (holding that "the exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless home entries when officers reasonably believe that some actor or object in a house may immediately cause harm to persons or property not in or near the house" [emphasis in original]); Mora v. Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216, 225-226 (4th Cir. 2008) (pl | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1224 (2011) (“the exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless home entries when officers reasonably believe that some actor or object in a house may immediately cause harm to persons or property not in or near the house” [emphasis in original]); Mora v. Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216, 225-226 (4th Cir. 2008) (placing search of home of detained man who had threatened his coworkers squarely within emergency exception, despite his not being home, as “[t]he authority to defuse a threat in an emergency nece 2015Consequently, the motion judge did not err in concluding that the officers were seizing the bottles in response to an emergency that encompassed both the condition of the defendant who was being taken to the hospital and the condition of the patients who were already there. (2011) (holding that "the exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless home entries when officers reasonably believe that some actor or object in a house may immediately cause harm to persons or property not in or near the house" [emphasis in original]); Mora v. Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216, 225-226 (4th Cir. 2008) (pl | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Moskow, Sigmundgreen2 sentences2015Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1224 (2011) (“the exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless home entries when officers reasonably believe that some actor or object in a house may immediately cause harm to persons or property not in or near the house” [emphasis in original]); Mora v. Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216, 225-226 (4th Cir. 2008) (placing search of home of detained man who had threatened his coworkers squarely within emergency exception, despite his not being home, as “[t]he authority to defuse a threat in an emergency nece 2015Consequently, the motion judge did not err in concluding that the officers were seizing the bottles in response to an emergency that encompassed both the condition of the defendant who was being taken to the hospital and the condition of the patients who were already there. (2011) (holding that "the exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless home entries when officers reasonably believe that some actor or object in a house may immediately cause harm to persons or property not in or near the house" [emphasis in original]); Mora v. Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216, 225-226 (4th Cir. 2008) (pl | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Molinagreen1 sentence2011In looking at the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Judicial Court has emphasized that the key underlying question is whether “it was impracticable for the police to obtain a warrant.” Commonwealth v. Molina, 439 Mass. 206, 209 (2003), quoting from Commonwealth v. Forde, 367 Mass. 798, 800 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wigfallgreen1 sentence2005See Commonwealth v. Huffman, 385 Mass. 122, 125-126 (1982); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 290, 293-295 (1987); Commonwealth v. Wigfall, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 582, 587-588 (1992); Commonwealth v. Street, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 301, 306-307 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Streetgreen1 sentence2005See Commonwealth v. Huffman, 385 Mass. 122, 125-126 (1982); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 290, 293-295 (1987); Commonwealth v. Wigfall, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 582, 587-588 (1992); Commonwealth v. Street, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 301, 306-307 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence2005See Commonwealth v. Huffman, 385 Mass. 122, 125-126 (1982); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 290, 293-295 (1987); Commonwealth v. Wigfall, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 582, 587-588 (1992); Commonwealth v. Street, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 301, 306-307 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Huffmangreen1 sentence2005See Commonwealth v. Huffman, 385 Mass. 122, 125-126 (1982); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 290, 293-295 (1987); Commonwealth v. Wigfall, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 582, 587-588 (1992); Commonwealth v. Street, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 301, 306-307 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Skeagreen1 sentence2000See Commonwealth v. Shea, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 685, 694 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Michigan v. Tylergreen1 sentence1997See Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Leegreen1 sentence1995See Commonwealth v. Forde, 367 Mass. 798, 800-801 (1975); Commonwealth v. Lee, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 85, 88 (1992); Commonwealth v. Guaba, 417 Mass. at 754 . | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Carignangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kentucky v. King
green
2 sentences2019Pursuant to both art. 14 and the Fourth Amendment, the exigent circumstances doctrine establishes another "well-recognized," King , 563 U.S. at 460 , 131 S.Ct. 1849 , yet "narrow" exception to the warrant requirement, see Tyree , 455 Mass. at 691 , 919 N.E.2d 660 . 2019Pursuant to both art. 14 and the Fourth Amendment, the exigent circumstances doctrine establishes another "well-recognized," King , 563 U.S. at 460 , 131 S.Ct. 1849 , yet "narrow" exception to the warrant requirement, see Tyree , 455 Mass. at 691 , 919 N.E.2d 660 . | 3 | 2011–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Arias
green
1 sentence2025Arias, 481 Mass. at 615 , quoting Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 439 4 Mass. 616 , 619 (2003). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Alexis
green
1 sentence2019"Under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, 'there must be a showing that it was impracticable for the police to obtain a warrant, and the standards as to exigency are strict.' " Id . at 97 , 112 N.E.3d 796 , quoting Commonwealth v. Forde , 367 Mass. 798 , 800, 329 N.E.2d 717 (1975). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Missouri v. McNeely
green
2 sentences2019Six years ago, in Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), the Supreme Court clarified that the scope of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement articulated in Schmerber is not as broad as we concluded it was in Davidson. 2019Six years ago, in Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), the Supreme Court clarified that the scope of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement articulated in Schmerber is not as broad as we concluded it was in Davidson. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Streeter
green
2 sentences2017Finally, in Streeter, 71 Mass. App. Ct. at 437-438 , the result turns on a traditional exigent circumstances analysis. 6 While outside the defendant's apartment investigating an unrelated crime, the police smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from inside the defendant's apartment. 2017Id. at 431 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Rosado-Toro v. United States
green
1 sentence2015Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1071 (10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1224 (2011) (“the exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless home entries when officers reasonably believe that some actor or object in a house may immediately cause harm to persons or property not in or near the house” [emphasis in original]); Mora v. Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216, 225-226 (4th Cir. 2008) (placing search of home of detained man who had threatened his coworkers squarely within emergency exception, despite his not being home, as “[t]he authority to defuse a threat in an emergency nece | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Woodford, Warden v. Wai Silva
green
1 sentence2011Citing Commonwealth v. Forde , the defendant did argue below that police lacked “sufficient justification for the failure to obtain a warrant." To support its position that the issue is before us on substantial risk review, the Commonwealth cites to Commonwealth v. Vuthy Seng, 436 Mass. 537, 550 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 942 (2002). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Commonwealth v. Vuthy Seng
green
1 sentence2011Citing Commonwealth v. Forde , the defendant did argue below that police lacked “sufficient justification for the failure to obtain a warrant." To support its position that the issue is before us on substantial risk review, the Commonwealth cites to Commonwealth v. Vuthy Seng, 436 Mass. 537, 550 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 942 (2002). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Commonwealth v. Navarro
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 620-624 & nn.3, 8. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Commonwealth v. Guaba
green
1 sentence1995See Commonwealth v. Forde, 367 Mass. 798, 800-801 (1975); Commonwealth v. Lee, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 85, 88 (1992); Commonwealth v. Guaba, 417 Mass. at 754 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Malley v. Briggs
green
1 sentence1991Schmerber , on the other *884 hand, dealt with the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant rule, and, while the Court in that case was concerned with the intrusive nature of searches “involving intrusions beyond the body’s surface,” id. at 769 , it did not state, in its holding or in dictum, that such searches are per se unconstitutional. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Carroll v. United States green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Ludlow v. State green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.