Opinion ID: 2315904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence

Text: Defendant argues that because the police entered the apartment without a warrant, the evidence they obtained as the result of that entry, specifically the gun, should have been suppressed. We disagree. The police officers went to the Lewiston apartment expecting to interview two potential witnesses. To their surprise, they were met at the door of the apartment by the murder suspect himself. They believed him to be armed. When he turned and reentered the apartment to put on his shoes, leaving the door open behind him, they appropriately followed him in. They entered with at least his acquiescence. They could not have been expected to have come prepared with a warrant or to leave at that time to obtain one. They had a valid safety concern in making sure that he did not come back out with a gun or that some other person within the apartment did not present them with an unexpected danger. The police entry into the apartment was thus justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Cf. State v. Boilard, 488 A.2d 1380, 1384 (Me.1985) (routine investigation of report of possible criminal activity not sufficient for finding of exigent circumstances). Once they were lawfully in the apartment, they could properly seize any evidence of a crime that came into plain view. See State v. Harriman, 467 A.2d 745, 748 (Me.1983). When defendant openly displayed a gun matching the description of that used in the shooting, the police properly seized the gun. Under a combination of the exigent circumstances and plain view doctrines, the court committed no error in denying defendant's motion to suppress the gun.