United States Fourth Circuit

In a prosecution of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm, district court's denial of a motion to suppress a gun and statements made at the time of arrest as the fruits of a warrantless search is affirmed where: 1) a warrant was not necessary in this case as the officer never received a report of a crime, nor did he have a reason to suspect that a crime had taken or would take place, but was merely working to return a lost child to her caretaker; 2) both the self-evident danger that the abandoned child posed to herself and the inference of danger to her caretaker made it reasonable to conclude that it was necessary to make a brief entry to find someone inside the home, and to do so promptly; 3) under the circumstances, the officer's conduct did not transgress constitutional boundaries; and 4) defendant's claim that the officer's entry was unreasonable because there were less intrusive options available is rejected.

Appellate Information

• Argued 09/23/2010
• Decided 11/04/2010
• Published 11/04/2010

Judges

• WILKINSON

Court

• United States Fourth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Paul Geoffrey Gill, Richard Daniel Cooke