We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Exigent Circumstances – Part One

Officers are frequently confronted with emergencies that need to be immediately dealt with, that may not fit the requirement for a warrant, and may result in the entry of areas protected by the Fourth Amendment.  Unfortunately for peace officers, the guidance given by the Courts in these situations is sometimes contradictory and often times very fact driven.  Below, the Legal Update will try to provide some guidance and questions to ask yourself when confronted by an exigent circumstance. 



The test for an exigent circumstance entry is whether the entry was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.  The Court will look to see if thepublic concerns for the search or seizure advances the public good versus the severity of the interference with the 4th amendment right.  The worse the emergency, the higher the justification for the action.  Of course, the reason there is concern in a criminal case regarding these types of entries is when evidence of a crime is found in the location.  



While not an exhaustive list, Courts have upheld warrantless entries based on the following scenarios:

Imminent threat of death or GBI to a person–Some cases actually evaluate the reasonableness of such an entry based on what the public would say if a peace officer had NOT acted. 

Sick/Injured Person-Officers go to the door and knock, hear moaning, upheld; 911 call of an accidental stabbing, upheld; Fight in progress inside house, officers outside see the fight and enter, upheld; Officers were told a victim of a violent act was on the way to the hospital, they see blood and enter home where it occurred, because of other potential victims, upheld.

Dead Body-can enter to confirm.  Then get a warrant, there is no homicide/dead body/crime scene exception to the warrant requirement.  In each example, an exigent circumstance entry and plain view observations are fine, but then get a warrant. 

911 hang-ups-may provide authority to force entry based on exigent circumstances. Officers will want to know things like: whether or not someone said something on the call, whether the dispatcher called back and there was no answer or a hang up, what the residence looks like, (ie door open, lights on, movement), prior to making an entry. 



The Court will look at whether the facts at the time of entry would lead a reasonable officer to believe that there was an urgent need to enter based on the reasonable officer’s training and experience. 

The Court evaluates the severity of the potential harm, i.e.death, GBI or destruction of property.  How imminent is the threat?  What else could have been done?  Could a warrant have been issued?  What cause did officers have to believe they needed to make entry?  While probable cause is not absolutely required it will make the entry much more supportable if you do have probable cause to believe entry is demanded. 

Remember, prior to making an exigent circumstance entry to gather as many facts about the situation as possible, and be sure to document the facts known to you at the time of the entry and your justifications for entry for your protection and the protection of the case.  


  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda