Court Opinion

ID: 9760537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:59:19.709403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:13.277147
License: Public Domain

Justice EID,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that both the county court and the district court erred in holding that a DUI is not a sufficiently grave offense to justify a warrantless entry into a home under exigent cireumstances, and therefore join Part IIIA. of its opinion. Because the gravity of the offense is a significant factor in determining whether exigent cireumstances exist, however, I would find that the lower courts' error impacted the entirety of their exigency analysis. The case should therefore be remanded for determination of whether, using the proper analysis that considers a DUI a sufficiently grave offense, exigent cireumstances existed. Accordingly, I dissent from Part IILB. of the majority's opinion determining that exigent circumstances did not justify entry into the home in this case.
I am authorized to say that Justice COATS joins in this opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.