Once inside the apartment, one of the two officers asked A.U. for consent to open the bedroom door. She responded by asking if a warrant was required. Eventually, one officer opened the door to the bedroom where T.M.M. was found. From the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the trial court that A.U. never voluntarily consented to a search of the apartment. We also agree with the trial court's conclusion that no exigent circumstances justified the search.
Exigent circumstances exist when there is a risk of danger to police.
T.M.M. had been in the apartment since the night before the search. The officers spent some time in the apartment with no indication of concern for their safety. There was no concern that T.M.M. was in possession of a weapon. Conduct that would constitute an illegal search does not become something less merely because the police had reasonable suspicion and embarked on a search of limited intrusiveness. Thus, the search was unreasonable.