People v. Higgins

People v. Higgins (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 247, held the officers' warrantless entry was valid under the exigent circumstances exception: "The officers could not abandon the matter and expose the victim to further harm simply because defendant refused them admittance." (Wilkins, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 772.) The officers were not constitutionally constrained to delay until an arrest warrant could have been obtained: "Given the time of night around midnight, the securing of a warrant would necessarily have occasioned some delay and during this period the victim would have been vulnerable to further risk of physical harm. The risk of imminent violence resulting in further physical harm to the victim was an exigent circumstance requiring immediate action." (Ibid.) In Higgins, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th 247, the officers responded to a domestic disturbance report of a man shoving a woman around at a residence. The officers knocked on the back door and no one answered. They walked around to the front door, and saw a man inside the residence and heard a shout from within. They knocked on the front door and a woman answered. She was frightened, nervous, and had marks on her face consistent with being recently struck or slapped. She claimed she was alright, she had fallen down the stairs, and her boyfriend had been there but he was gone. As she talked to the officers, she tried to edge them away from the open front door. (Id. at pp. 249-250.) Based on her appearance and demeanor, the officers believed she was a domestic violence victim and the perpetrator was still in the house. The officers entered the house to make sure everything was alright. The woman called out to her boyfriend, who emerged from upstairs and said he had been sleeping. While talking to him, an officer smelled marijuana and saw a scale and a bindle of cocaine on the floor. The boyfriend consented to a search of the residence, the police found more contraband, and they were both arrested on narcotics violations. (Id. at p. 250) Higgins held the officers' warrantless entry into the house was valid based on the exigent circumstances of responding to a domestic disturbance report, and immediate action was necessary given the battered victim's frightened appearance at the front door. (Higgins, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at pp. 252, 255.) The officers' actions were "objectively reasonable and motivated by their concern for the victim's well being . . . ." (Id. at p. 255.) Higgins rejected the defendants' argument that the officers merely followed departmental policy when they entered the house to check on the woman's welfare: "The record does not support the defendants' contention the officers blindly followed their department's domestic disturbance response policy without considering the facts at hand. That policy apparently requires officers to contact all parties at the scene of a suspected domestic disturbance, to ensure everyone is safe and the situation is under control. The officer acknowledged this policy. However, he indicated he had discretion to disregard it if the first person he contacted at the scene convinced him everything was all right. The officer said the situation at the defendants' residence was 'totally different' and the woman appeared in danger. This signifies the officer carefully assessed the situation and responded based on the circumstances before him." (Higgins, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 251-252.)