Nevada Supreme Court issues opinion

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In Hannon v. State, the Court reverses a conviction, entered pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere, of one count of possession of a controlled substance.  The Court finds that an "emergency" search of a home was unlawful because there was no objectively reasonable basis to believe that the two occupants or any undisclosed third party may have been in danger inside. The opinion brings Nevada case law into conformity with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 404 (2006).

Hannon involves a call to an apartment based upon a 911 call of a neighbor concerning a domestic disturbance.  Both the adult male and the female stated that they were okay and refused permission for the police officers to enter the apartment.  Officers stated that they pushed their way into the apartment to protect the safety of the occupants and then saw pot and paraphernalia once they were inside.  The district court denied the suppression motion, even though the police officer admitted that he did not have any evidence that another occupant may have been inside who needed emergency assistance, but "just had suspicions."  The Nevada Supreme Court reversed.  The officer's subjective motivations are irrelevant.  An objective standard applies.  Under the facts here, there was no objectively reasonable basis to believe that a third party was injured inside.


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Nevada Supreme Court issues opinion.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by JoNell published on May 21, 2009 9:18 AM.

US Supreme Court grants cert in 4 cases was the previous entry in this blog.

Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor for US Supreme Court is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.0