[W]e conclude that the officers’ warrantless entry was not only permissible, it was necessary. The officers had probable cause to believe that domestic violence recently occurred before they entered the apartment to investigate if anyone needed medical assistance. Accordingly, we find exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into Rowley’s apartment.
State v. Rowley
2022 – Ohio – 997
Twelfth District Appellate Court
Clinton County, Ohio
March 28, 2022
On Thursday November 19, 2020, Blanchester, Ohio Police Sergeant Brian Noah and Officer Kristen Jeffers were dispatched to 126 South Broadway Street to investigate a report of domestic violence involving a man and a woman.
Blanchester Police Sgt. Noah and Officer Jeffers responded to 126 South Broadway Street on a report of a domestic violence call for service. No one would be charged with domestic violence but a forced entry was made and Mr. Rowley’s drug cache was discovered. Were the officers lawful to cross the threshold?
When the officers arrived, they entered a narrow corridor and climbed the stairs. When they reached the landing, the officers observed a large hole in the dry wall roughly the size of a human torso. The officers also observed that Mr. Ronald Rowley’s door was severely damaged. According to Sgt. Noah, the door was so damaged that it could not be latched or fully closed and therefore sat slightly ajar. The officers knocked on thedoor several times. Mr. Rowley came to the door but did not open it wider. He instead applied pressure to the door to close it as much as possible. Sgt. Noah testified that he then placed his hand on the door and applied sufficient pressure on the door to keep it from closing further to communicate with Mr. Rowley.
Sgt. Noah identified himself as a police officer and stated the reason for his presence. Mr. Rowley told Sgt. Noah to “hold on” and claimed to be getting dressed; however, Sgt. Noah stated that Mr. Rowley was clearly not getting dressed because there was no other movement behind the door. At some point, Mr. Rowley released pressure on the door and the door slightly opened more. Sgt. Noah then observed fresh blood droplets on the floor. Sgt. Noah testified that Mr. Rowley had a bloody nose and had blood on his face. He then noticed that the apartment was “disheveled” with strewn furniture and overturned plants. Sometimes it is difficult to determine if a residence is freshly dishelved or the occupant’s standard of living.
After observing this situation, Sgt. Noah entered the apartment to locate the female involved in the disturbance and to determine her status. Before locating the female, however, Sgt. Noah observed items in plain view that were indicative of drug use, i.e., pills, torn baggies, and hypodermic syringes. The officers then located thefemale but determined that she did not appear to have any significant injuries.
Mr. Rowley was placed under arrest for aggravated trafficking in drugs, drug possession and possession of drug instruments. A search incident to arrest revealed that he was in possession of additional narcotics and approximately $500 in cash. Mr. Rowley was then removed from the premises and taken to jail. Sgt. Noah contacted his chief and applied for a search warrant for the apartment. In an affidavit in support of the searchwarrant, Officer Jeffers stated that Sgt. Noah “pushed the door open.” The search warrant was approved, and a subsequent inventory was filed indicating the discovery of more drugs, cash, and drug paraphernalia. Mr. Rowley was not charged with Domestic Violence.
Mr. Rowley filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence, claiming that the officers unlawfully crossed the threshold of his doorway. During the hearings, Sgt. Noah was questioned specifically about PO Jeffers’ affidavit in support of a search warrant. Sgt. Noah denied pushing the door open and explained that Mr. Rowley himself either opened the door, or the damaged door released on its own when Mr. Rowley ceased applying pressure to it. When the door opened,
Sgt. Noah testified that he observed blood on the floor, blood on Mr. Rowley, and a chaotic scene that necessitated his entry into Rowley’s apartment to search for a victim and determine that individual’s condition. Despite the testimony, in its post-hearing brief, the state agreed that Sergeant Noah “pushed the door open.”
The trial court granted the Motion to Suppress claiming that the officer unlawfully crossed the threshold of the doorway. The State of Ohio, Village of Blanchester appealed the Motion to Suppress and the Twelfth District Appellate Court overturned the trial court. The court held “[W]e conclude that the officers’ warrantless entry was not only permissible, it was necessary. The officers had probable cause to believe that domestic violence recently occurred before they entered the apartment to investigate if anyone needed medical assistance. Accordingly, we find exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into Rowley’s apartment.”.
Information from this article was obtained from State v. Rowley, 2022 – Ohio – 997.
This case was issued by the Twelfth District Appellate Court and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Brown, Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Fayette, Madison, Preble and Warren.
Lessons Learned:
- Law enforcement can cross the threshold of the doorway one of three ways; Consent, Warrant [arrest or search] or Exigent Circumstance. In this case the officers did not have either consent or a warrant. The officers crossed the threshold utilizing an Exigent Circumstance of Danger – inside. The call for service originated as a dispatched call for domestic violence. When the officers arrived there was significant structural damage to the property, the door was ajar, there was visible blood and Mr. Rowley was holding the door.
- The U.S. Supreme Court previously held “[T]he physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 748 (1984). This is why law enforcement must be cautious ANYTIME he crosses the threshold. Officers must always know what legal concept they are operating when crossing the threshold of any doorway. Both Sgt. Noah and Officer Jeffers knew that there was an exigent circumstance and went in.
- There are several exceptions to crossing the threshold of a doorway without consent or a warrant. Previously the U.S. Supreme Court held “The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.”. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978). Both Sgt. Noah and Officer Jeffers lived up to their oath when the crossed the threshold. As the Twelfth District Appellate court held in pertinent part ““[W]e conclude that the officers’ warrantless entry was not only permissible, it was necessary.”. Here the court recognized that the officers had a legal duty to act and investigate if there was a victim of domestic violence present. The fact that Mr. Rowley was not criminally charged with Domestic Violence is not relevant as to whether crossing the threshold was reasonable. Well done!
Does your agency train on Exigent Circumstance?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and Objectively Reasonable!