exigent circumstances exception in Rhode Island

2010The exigent circumstances exception justifies warrantless searches when "evidence is likely to be lost, destroyed, or removed during the time required to obtain a warrant . . . "or where the police must act to "protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury." State v. Gonsalves , 553 A.2d 1073 (R.I. 1989) (quoting State v. Jennings , 461 A.2d 361 (R.I 1983)).

1989In State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361 (R.I. 1983), we defined the exigent circumstances exception to include situations in which “evidence is likely to be lost, destroyed, or removed during the time required to obtain a warrant and when, because of the circumstances, it is difficult to secure a warrant, a warrantless entry and search may be justified.

2023“Whether circumstances rise to the level of exigency is determined by referring to the facts known to the police at the time of the arrest. * * * ‘[T]he police [must] have an objective, reasonable belief that a crisis can only be avoided by swift and immediate action.’” State v. Gonsalves, 553 A.2d 1073, 1075 (R.I. 1989) (quoting Duquette, 471 A.2d at 1363 ).

2010The exigent circumstances exception justifies warrantless searches when "evidence is likely to be lost, destroyed, or removed during the time required to obtain a warrant . . . "or where the police must act to "protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury." State v. Gonsalves , 553 A.2d 1073 (R.I. 1989) (quoting State v. Jennings , 461 A.2d 361 (R.I 1983)).

2023Examples of exigent circumstances include “law enforcement’s need to provide emergency assistance to an occupant of a home,” or to “engage in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect,” or “enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause,” or “prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Gonzalez, 136 A.3d at 1164 (Goldberg, J., concurring) (quoting McNeely, 569 U.S. at 149 ). “[T]he typical situation in which the exigent-circumstances exception applies occurs when police officers are pursuing an offender [who] they have probable cause to believe - 29 - committed a known offense.

2023“The exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies when ‘there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.’” State v. Gonzalez, 136 A.3d 1131, 1164 (R.I. 2016) (Goldberg, J., concurring) (quoting McNeely, 569 U.S. at 149 ).

2016The exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies when “there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.” McNeely, 138 S.Ct. at 1559 (quoting Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 , 98 S.Ct. 1942 , 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978)).

2016The exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies when “there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.” McNeely, 138 S.Ct. at 1559 (quoting Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 , 98 S.Ct. 1942 , 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978)).

2023Examples of exigent circumstances include “law enforcement’s need to provide emergency assistance to an occupant of a home,” or to “engage in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect,” or “enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause,” or “prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Gonzalez, 136 A.3d at 1164 (Goldberg, J., concurring) (quoting McNeely, 569 U.S. at 149 ). “[T]he typical situation in which the exigent-circumstances exception applies occurs when police officers are pursuing an offender [who] they have probable cause to believe - 29 - committed a known offense.

2023“Whether circumstances rise to the level of exigency is determined by referring to the facts known to the police at the time of the arrest. * * * ‘[T]he police [must] have an objective, reasonable belief that a crisis can only be avoided by swift and immediate action.’” State v. Gonsalves, 553 A.2d 1073, 1075 (R.I. 1989) (quoting Duquette, 471 A.2d at 1363 ).

1987A search within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement must be “ ‘strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.’ Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. at 393 , 98 S.Ct. at 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 300 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1882 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 908 (1968)).” State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d at 367.

1987A search within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement must be “ ‘strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.’ Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. at 393 , 98 S.Ct. at 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 300 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1882 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 908 (1968)).” State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d at 367.

2025See generally United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 951-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement must have an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there is an immediate need to protect others or - 21 - themselves from serious harm.”) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Huffman, 461 F.3d 777, 783 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that “[t]he government, in order to satisfy the exigent-circumstances exception” must demonstrate that “there was a risk of serious injury posed to the officers or others that required swift action. * * * In reviewi

2025See generally United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 951-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement must have an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there is an immediate need to protect others or - 21 - themselves from serious harm.”) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Huffman, 461 F.3d 777, 783 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that “[t]he government, in order to satisfy the exigent-circumstances exception” must demonstrate that “there was a risk of serious injury posed to the officers or others that required swift action. * * * In reviewi

2025See generally United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 951-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement must have an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there is an immediate need to protect others or - 21 - themselves from serious harm.”) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Huffman, 461 F.3d 777, 783 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that “[t]he government, in order to satisfy the exigent-circumstances exception” must demonstrate that “there was a risk of serious injury posed to the officers or others that required swift action. * * * In reviewi

2025See generally United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 951-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement must have an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there is an immediate need to protect others or - 21 - themselves from serious harm.”) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Huffman, 461 F.3d 777, 783 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that “[t]he government, in order to satisfy the exigent-circumstances exception” must demonstrate that “there was a risk of serious injury posed to the officers or others that required swift action. * * * In reviewi

2025Yet a “report that someone has died cannot always satisfy” the exigent-circumstances standard “because the report of a death generally indicates that emergency assistance is no longer needed.” Giambro, 126 F.4th at 57 .

2025Yet a “report that someone has died cannot always satisfy” the exigent-circumstances standard “because the report of a death generally indicates that emergency assistance is no longer needed.” Giambro, 126 F.4th at 57.

2017In Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 406-07 , 126 S.Ct. 1943 , the United States Supreme Court held that the exigent-circumstances exception justified the police officers’ war-rantless entry.

2017In Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 406-07 , the United States Supreme Court held that the exigent-circumstances exception justified the police officers’ warrantless entry.

2017The United States Supreme Court has underscored that “[t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 466 , 131 S.Ct. 1849 , 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 ).

2017The United States Supreme Court has underscored that “[t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 466 (2011) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97 ).

2017Any delay in obtaining a warrant at one o’clock in the morning could have ignited an already volatile situation.” From our view, this case falls squarely within the applicability of the exigent- circumstances exception because the above-mentioned circumstances precisely demonstrate “such a compelling necessity for immediate action as will not brook the delay of obtaining a warrant.” State v. Gonzalez, 136 A.3d 1131, 1151 (R.I. 2016) (quoting United States v. Adams, 621 F.2d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1980)). “[P]olice are in the emergency service business and they usually have little or no time to leisu

2017Any delay in obtaining a warrant at one o’clock in the morning could have ignited an already volatile situation.” From our view, this case falls squarely within the applicability of the exigent- circumstances exception because the above-mentioned circumstances precisely demonstrate “such a compelling necessity for immediate action as will not brook the delay of obtaining a warrant.” State v. Gonzalez, 136 A.3d 1131, 1151 (R.I. 2016) (quoting United States v. Adams, 621 F.2d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1980)). “[P]olice are in the emergency service business and they usually have little or no time to leisu

2017Any delay in obtaining a warrant at one o’clock in the morning could have ignited an already volatile situation.” From our view, this case falls squarely within the applicability of the exigent-circumstances exception because the above-mentioned circumstances precisely demonstrate “such a compelling necessity for immediate action as will not brook the delay of obtaining a warrant.” State v. Gonzalez, 136 A.3d 1131, 1151 (R.I. 2016) (quoting United States v. Adams, 621 F.2d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1980)). “[P]olice are in the emergency service business and they usually have little or no time to leisur

2017Any delay in obtaining a warrant at one o’clock in the morning could have ignited an already volatile situation.” From our view, this case falls squarely within the applicability of the exigent- circumstances exception because the above-mentioned circumstances precisely demonstrate “such a compelling necessity for immediate action as will not brook the delay of obtaining a warrant.” State v. Gonzalez, 136 A.3d 1131, 1151 (R.I. 2016) (quoting United States v. Adams, 621 F.2d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1980)). “[P]olice are in the emergency service business and they usually have little or no time to leisu

1987A search within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement must be “ ‘strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.’ Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. at 393 , 98 S.Ct. at 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 300 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1882 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 908 (1968)).” State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d at 367.

1987A search within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement must be “ ‘strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.’ Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. at 393 , 98 S.Ct. at 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 300 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1882 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 908 (1968)).” State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d at 367.

1984United States v. Booth, 455 A.2d 1351, 1354 (D.C.App.1983).