6th Circuit schools Columbus PD on “exigent circumstances”
Case: NELMS v. WELLINGTON WAY APARTMENTS, LLC, No. 11-3404 (Sixth Circuit, February 4, 2013)
The defendant officers argue that the following facts gave them reason to believe an exigency existed: (1) they were dispatched on a call of property destruction in progress; (2) an apartment complex employee said she saw a fight that resulted in damage to a fence and believed one of the fighters might be inside the apartment; (3) damage to the fence; (4) prior complaints of drug activity in the area; (5) Alli said he did not know if his brother was inside the apartment or had already left; and (6) no one answered the door when the officers knocked. But most of these reasons are genuinely disputed, and those that are not, even when aggregated, fail to establish exigent circumstances.