United States v. Dustin Schirf

667 F. App'x 186

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 21, 2016
• Docket: 15-30284
• Status: Unpublished

Opinions

MEMORANDUM

**

The United States appeals the district court’s order suppressing evidence obtained during a warrantless search of Dustin Schirfs home. We affirm.

The district court correctly determined that the emergency aid exception did not excuse the troopers’ warrantless entry into Schirfs home. See Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006), A warrantless entry is justified under the emergency aid exception when, based on the totality of the circumstances: (1) the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that there “was an immediate need to protect others or themselves from serious harm,” and (2) the manner and scope of the search were reasonable. United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 952 (9th Cir. 2008).

Here, it was objectively unreasonable for the troopers to believe that entry into Schirfs trailer was necessary to protect themselves or others from imminent harm. Upon arriving at the scene,' officers saw no signs of a disturbance: no angry voices, no broken glass, no blood, no door ajar, and nobody visibly hurt or -upset. Compare id. at 949; United States v. Martinez, 406 F.3d 1160, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Brooks, 367 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 2004). All they heard was loud music playing at what appeared to be a Halloween party. Moreover, the woman who answered the door denied that any domestic violence incident had occurred or that any shots had been fired. Although the troopers later discovered that Schirf was armed, that fact does not excuse the warrantless entrance by Trooper Fowler because he did not know Schirf had, a weapon at the time he entered, Under these circumstances, the troopers could not rely solely on the content of the 911 call, which did not identify Schirfs trailer specifically, to justify their warrantless search.¹

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1 . Because we agree with the district court on prong one of the emergency aid exception analysis, there is no need to address whether the manner and scope of the search were reasonable.