Opinion ID: 2648213
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Search inside the home

Text: a. The officers’ heightened basis to believe there was an immediate need to protect lives Mr. Dupree argues that exigent circumstances could not have justified the officers’ entry into the home because two facts the magistrate judge relied upon in her exigency determination—the smoke coming out of the house and the statement of the two undocumented men that there was a third man inside the house—were not apparent to the officers until they had already invaded the curtilage of the home. We disagree for two reasons. First, as explained above, the officers already had an exigency basis to search around the house to try to find Ms. Jacobsen. The officers therefore had not exceeded the scope of a permissible search when these additional facts came to their attention. Second, both the smoke and the statement about the third man heightened the exigency after the officers arrived at the home. The smoke flowing from the secondstory door in particular suggested the presence of a fire—a classic example of the sort of exigent circumstance that would justify a warrantless entry into a house. See Najar, 451 F.3d at 714 (“A warrant is not required to break down a door to enter a burning home to rescue occupants or extinguish a fire.” (quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C. Cir. 1963)). The statement that a third man was inside likewise reinforced the officers’ reasonable belief that Mr. Dupree might be present in the house. This information supplemented the ongoing threat to Ms. Jacobsen’s safety, coupled with the -16- fact that Ms. Dworkin apparently could not locate her and strongly suspected she had returned to the house. b. Manner and scope of the search The manner and scope of Detective Brookhouser’s search inside the home was reasonable in light of this heightened exigency. The magistrate judge found that once Detective Brookhouser entered the home, he “did not search the house, other than to look for people in the house, and did not open drawers.” ROA, Vol. I at 156. We agree with the district court that under these circumstances, the manner and scope of the search was reasonable and lawful, and Mr. Dupree’s motion to suppress was properly denied.