Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dustin Michael SCHIRF, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-21
Citations: 667 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 15-30284
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dustin Michael SCHIRF, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PAEZ and BYBEE, Circuit Judges and TIGAR, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 186–188

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dustin Michael SCHIRF, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-30284
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 6, 2016 Seattle, Washington
FILED June 21, 2016
Timothy D. Edmonds, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Anchorage, AK, Kirby A. Heller, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jamie McGrady, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Daniel F. Poul-son, FPDAK—Federal Public Defenders, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: PAEZ and BYBEE, Circuit Judges and TIGAR, District Judge.
The Honorable Jon S. Tigar, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The United States appeals the district court's order suppressing evidence obtained during a warrantless search of Dustin Schirfs home. We affirm.
The district court correctly determined that the emergency aid exception did not excuse the troopers' warrantless entry into Schirfs home. See Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006), A warrantless entry is justified under the emergency aid exception when, based on the totality of the circumstances: (1) the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that there "was an immediate need to protect others or themselves from serious harm," and (2) the manner and scope of the search were reasonable. United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 952 (9th Cir. 2008).
Here, it was objectively unreasonable for the troopers to believe that entry into Schirfs trailer was necessary to protect themselves or others from imminent harm. Upon arriving at the scene,' officers saw no signs of a disturbance: no angry voices, no broken glass, no blood, no door ajar, and nobody visibly hurt or -upset. Compare id. at 949; United States v. Martinez, 406 F.3d 1160, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Brooks, 367 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 2004). All they heard was loud music playing at what appeared to be a Halloween party. Moreover, the woman who answered the door denied that any domestic violence incident had occurred or that any shots had been fired. Although the troopers later discovered that Schirf was armed, that fact does not excuse the warrantless entrance by Trooper Fowler because he did not know Schirf had, a weapon at the time he entered, Under these circumstances, the troopers could not rely solely on the content of the 911 call, which did not identify Schirfs trailer specifically, to justify their warrantless search.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Because we agree with the district court on prong one of the emergency aid exception analysis, there is no need to address whether the manner and scope of the search were reasonable.