N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M IC HAEL DEANGELO C O LLINS, Jr., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30236

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-00320-M O-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M i c ha e l W . M osm an, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

4, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : TASHIM A, TALLM AN, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. M ic ha e l C ollins c h a lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny i ng his m otion to suppre ss e vide n c e of a loa de d 9 m m pistol m a g a z ine found on his person upon his arre st on theground tha

t it wa s obta ine d in viola

tion of the Fourth Am e ndm e nt. Afte r an e vide ntia

ry he aring, the distric t c ourt de nie d the m otion, holding tha

t the 

# FIL ED M AY18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.polic e offic e rs’ wa rrantle ss e n try

into C ollins’ a

pa rtm e nt wa s justifie d by

the c om bina tion of hot pursuit a

nd e xige nt c irc um sta

nc e s. C ollins subse que ntly e nte re d a guilty

ple a to be i ng a

pre viously

c onvic te d fe l on in posse s sion of am m unition in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 922(g)(1) a n d 924(a )(2), c onditione d on his right to a

ppe a l the m otion to suppre ss. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . W he n a n offic e r is in hot pursuit of a suspe c t a nd “ t he unde rly ing offe nse is only a m isde m e anor, la

w e n forc e m e nt m

ust y i e ld to theFourth Am e ndm e nt in a ll but the ‘ rare s t’ of c a se s.” Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 256 F.3d 895, 908 n.6 (9th C ir. 2001). W e ne e d not de te rm ine if this situa tion pre se nte d the “ rare st” c a se be c a use the d istric t c o urt c orre c tly he ld tha t e xige nt c irc um sta

nc e s justifie d the wa

rrantle ss e ntry into thea pa rtm e nt to e ffe c t his a

rre st. Evide nc e obta ine d during a wa rrantle ss e n try

by la w e nforc e m e nt in a

n e m e rge n c y

situa tion is a dm issibleif “ (1) c o n side ring the tota lity of the c irc um s ta nc e s , la w e nforc e m e nt ha d a

n obje c tive ly

re a sona ble ba sis for c onc luding that the re wa s a

n im m e diate ne e d to prote c t othe rs or the m se lve s from se rious ha rm ; a nd (2) the se arc h’ s sc o p e and m anne r we re re a sona b le to m e e t the ne e d.” Unite d State s v . Snipe , 515 F.3d 947, 952 (9th C ir. 2008). This e x c e ption “ d oe s not de pe n d on the offic e rs’ subje c tive inte nt or the se riousne ss of a ny c rim e the y 2are i nve stiga ting whe n the e m e rge nc y

arise s.” M

ic higan v
. Fishe r , 558 U.S. 45, 47 (2009). The e v i de nc e is a dm issiblee ve n if offic e rs did not ha v e proba b le c a use to be lie ve tha

t e v ide n c e of suc h

a c rim e would be found. S nipe , 515 F.3d a

t 952. B e c a use the offic e rs ha d a

n obje c tive ly

re a sona ble ba sis for c onc luding the re wa s a n im m e d iate ne e d to pre ve nt ha rm to the re side nts of the a

pa rtm e nt, the ir warran tle ss e ntry

into C ollins’ a

pa rtm e nt wa s pe rm i ssible . Offic e rs we re in pursuit of C ollins whe n he ran into a n a pa rtm e n t. From

within the

a p artm e nt the offic e rs im m e diate ly he ard sc re am i ng, y e lling, a nd c rie s of “ ge t out.” 1 Offic e rs the n e nte re d the a

pa rtm e nt, a rre ste d C ollins, a

nd found theloa de d m a g a z ine on his pe rson whe n he wa s se arc he d inc ide nt to thearre st. It wa s obje c tive ly re a sona ble unde r the tota lity

of the c i rc um sta

nc e s for offic e rs to be lie ve the y ha d c ha se d C ollins into the

hom e of a

nothe r an d sc re am s from

the re side nts wa

rrante d im m e diate e n try into thea

pa rtm e nt to pre ve nt se rious, im m ine nt injury

to the oc c upa nts. Se e id. ; se e also Brigham C ity v . Stuart , 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006) (“ [L] aw e nforc e m e nt offic e rs m ay e n te r a hom e without a

wa rran t . . . to prote c t a

n oc c upa nt from im

m ine n t injury .” ).

1 That the offic e rs c ould only disc e rn the words “ ge t

out” ra the r tha

n a m ore im m e diate c ry

for he l p is not dispositive . Snipe , 515 F.3d a t 954 (“ W e will not im pose a duty

of inquiry

on the polic e to se pa

ra t e a true c ry for he lp from a le ss de se rving c a ll for a

tte ntion . . . .” ). 3The sa m e e m e rge nc y

situa tion justifie d the offic e rs’ m anne r of e ntry . “ [I] f c irc um s ta nc e s support a

re a sona ble suspic ion of e xige n c y whe n the offic e rs a

rrive a t the door, the y m ay

go stra ight in.” Unite d State s v . Bank s , 540 U.S. 31, 37 (2003); se e also United State s v . C o mbs , 394 F.3d 739, 744 (9th C i r. 2005) (noting that in som e insta

nc e s offic e rs m ay

dispe nse with theknoc k-and-a nnounc e re quire m e nt e ntire ly ). He re , offic e rs re a sona bly be lie ve d tha t C ollins ha d sought re fuge by running into a stra

n ge r’ s a pa rtm e nt a nd im m e d iate e ntry

into tha t a pa rtm e nt wa s ne c e ssa

ry to prote c t the re s ide nts within. As a re sult, thesc ope and m anne r of the ir e ntry

wa s re a s ona

ble to m e e t the ne e ds of the e m e rge nc y situa tion C ollins c re a te d. Se e Snipe , 515 F.3d a t 952. The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing C ollins’ m otion to suppre ss e vide n c e of the loa de d m a ga z ine . AFFIRM E D.

4