Opinion ID: 1026070
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: -- pretty big dogs, they’re -- Mr.

Text: Schaffer may know the types of dogs, I’m not sure of the name of the dogs. Q: So she went in the house with you? A: Yes, sir. Behind us, but, yes, she did enter the house with us. (J.A. 67) (emphasis added). Still, Schaffer argues that the officers did not enter Mr. Schaffer’s residence with any belief that an armed and dangerous person was hiding therein. If they truly believed that to be the situation, the officers would not have knowingly exposed Nancy Schaffer to danger, and would certainly have not permitted her to walk freely from room-to-room within the house. (Appellant’s Br. 9.) Although the record does establish that Nancy Schaffer went into the residence with the officers, it is nothing more than conjecture to state that she walked freely inside the house before it had been secured. In fact, according to Hogan, “she was going around just -- she was, basically, with Sergeant Stump, behind Sergeant Stump, going around, picking through things, looking at things.” (J.A. 68.) Moreover, although “she started collecting clothing before [the officers] even cleared the whole house,” (J.A. 122), Stump testified that she was not ahead of the officers when collecting her items. (J.A. 129.) Q: Okay, and Mrs. Schaffer -- Mrs. Schaffer goes in with you, and, as you indicated, as you’re searching the house and concerned about everybody’s safety, Mrs. Schaffer is ahead of you or in different 13 rooms collecting some of her items, is that correct? A: Not ahead of us. I did my best to keep her behind us, because we didn’t need her in the house at that time, we didn’t want her in the house at that time, she wanted to be there; plus, if we left her out in the car, did we know that Mr. Schaffer wouldn’t return and do harm to her out in the yard? It was a totally unsafe situation, in my opinion. (J.A. 129.) Hogan’s testimony corroborated this testimony of Stump: Q: So she went in the house with you? A: Yes, sir. Behind us, but, yes, she did enter the house with us. Q: You, Sergeant Stump, and Nancy Schaffer, then, entered the residence, correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: And, when you got inside, what did you do as soon as you entered the front door? Were your weapons pulled? A: We had our weapons drawn. Q: Why? A: We also had our flashlights. Q: Why? A: For the simple fact -- I’m going back to it again, but officer safety. (J.A. 67.) Certainly, Nancy Schaffer’s evident lack of fear for her safety in no way diminishes the officer’s testimony that they thought the circumstances to be unsafe. Simply stated, the officers had limited options and even more limited time to consider them. Turning to the factors enumerated in Mowatt, inasmuch as it was reasonable for the officers to believe that an armed man was 14 lurking around and may have already returned to his home, the first factor, the urgency factor, favors the Government’s argument concerning exigent circumstances. The second factor, concerning the officers’ reasonable belief that the contraband was about to be removed or destroyed, favors the Government to the extent that this factor is construed to refer to the officers’ reasonable belief that Schaffer might be in the house and he might flee. The third factor regarding the possibility of danger to police guarding the site also favors the Government. It was reasonable for them to enter the house based on the circumstances that they faced to determine if Schaffer was present and armed. Further, the fact that they entered the house with their guns drawn demonstrates their concern for not only their safety but also for Nancy Schaffer. As to the fourth factor, there is no evidence in the record as to whether Mr. Schaffer was aware that the police were on his trail. There is also no evidence in the record as to the fifth factor, that the officers were concerned about the ready destructibility of the contraband. Thus, these two factors favor neither party. Concerning the gravity of the offense, here, the officers were confronted with a situation in which it is unchallenged that the officers had information that Mrs. Schaffer had reported that Mr. Schaffer “had held a gun to her head and 15 threatened to kill her.” (Appellant’s Br. 2) (J.A. 36, 37). Thus, this factor favors the Government. In sum, viewing the situation from the perspective of the officers at the scene of the first warrantless search of Schaffer’s house, we are of the firm belief that the circumstances that the officers faced here would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry into Schaffer’s home was necessary to preserve life or avoid serious injury to the officers and to Mrs. Schaffer and to prevent the possible escape of Mr. Schaffer. Accordingly, the officers’ first warrantless entry into Mr. Schaffer’s house was appropriate.