In United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506 (6th Cir. 1996), in the early morning hours of May 22, 1994, Canton, Ohio, Police Officers John Clark and Walter Tucker received a complaint of loud noise emanating from the residence of Rohrig. As the officers approached within a block of Rohrig's home in their squad car, they began to hear loud music. Shortly after the officers arrived on the premises at 1:39 a.m., somewhere between four and eight pajama-clad neighbors emerged from their homes to complain about the noise. . . . Officer Clark banged repeatedly on the front door of Rohrig's home, but received no response. While Officer Tucker returned to the squad car in an attempt to obtain the telephone number of the residence, Officer Clark walked around the outside of the two-story residence, all the while tapping to no avail on its first-floor windows. As he walked outside the house, he observed two stereo speakers in the first-floor living room and another pair of speakers in an upstairs room, with speaker wire running between the two floors on the outside of the home. Upon reaching the back door of Rohrig's home, Officer Clark discovered that it was open, with only an unlocked screen door preventing access into the house. He called to Officer Tucker, who abandoned his effort to obtain a telephone number and joined Officer Clark at the back door. The officers knocked and hollered to announce their presence, but again received no answer. They then opened the unlocked screen door, passed through a porch and through the open back door, and emerged into a kitchen. . . . A light was on in the kitchen when the officers entered, but the remaining first-floor rooms were dark. The officers then observed another light emerging from an open doorway. Proceeding through this doorway toward the light, they traveled down some stairs and into Rohrig's basement. The officers testified that they went downstairs not because they believed that was the source of the loud music, but because they hoped to find an occupant of the home who could turn the music down. Upon reaching the basement, the officers discovered "wall-to-wall" marijuana plants, as well as fans and running water. Having failed to locate anyone in the basement, the officers returned to the first floor, and then traveled upstairs to the second floor, continuing to announce their presence. At the top of the stairs, Officer Clark observed a man lying on the floor of one of the two bedrooms, and also discovered that this room contained the stereo that was the source of the loud music. As Officer Clark attempted to rouse the sleeping man, who turned out to be Rohrig, Officer Tucker turned down the offending stereo. (Id. at 1509.) Later, Rohrig signed a consent form, and a search revealed the marijuana and a sawed-off shotgun. Rohrig was cited for a noise violation, and also charged with federal offenses related to marijuana and the weapon. Noting "that none of the traditionally recognized exigent circumstances is squarely presented under the facts of this case," the court nonetheless held that "exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into Rohrig's home," id. at 1518, because there was "an ongoing and highly intrusive breach of the neighborhood's peace in the middle of the night." Id. at 1519. In its analysis, the Court noted three important considerations in a typical "exigent circumstances" inquiry: (1) whether immediate government action was required, (2) whether the governmental interest was sufficiently compelling to justify a warrantless intrusion, and (3) whether the citizen's expectation of privacy was diminished in some way. Id. at 1521. Regarding the first element, "had the officers attempted to secure a warrant, it is clear that the aural assault emanating from Rohrig's home would have continued unabated for a significant period of time." Id. Regarding the second and third elements, by entering Rohrig's residence for the limited purpose of locating and abating a nuisance, the officers sought to restore the neighbors' peaceful enjoyment of their homes and neighborhood. In view of the importance of preserving our communities, we do not think that this interest is so insignificant that it can never serve as justification for a warrantless entry into a home. Id. The Rohrig court stated that Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) "teaches that the weight of a governmental interest should be measured in part by the severity of the offense being investigated," but opined that "the Welsh analysis has less relevance as one moves away from traditional law enforcement functions and toward . . . 'community caretaking functions.'" Rohrig, 98 F.3d at 1521 . Therefore, the governmental interest in immediately abating an ongoing nuisance by quelling loud and disruptive noise in a residential neighborhood is sufficiently compelling to justify warrantless intrusions under some circumstances. . . . In particular, a compelling governmental interest supports warrantless entries where, as here, strict adherence to the warrant requirement would subject the community to a continuing and noxious disturbance for an extended period of time without serving any apparent purpose. Moreover, as discussed earlier, Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) and its progeny instruct us to balance the governmental interest being served against the individual's interest in remaining free from governmental intrusions. In light of Rohrig's course of conduct, we find that he cannot claim the degree of privacy protection that generally attaches to private dwellings. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) ("The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection."). Just as one's expectation of privacy diminishes as he ventures beyond his doorway, see United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976), Rohrig here undermined his right to be left alone by projecting loud noises into the neighborhood in the wee hours of the morning, thereby significantly disrupting his neighbors' peace. Indeed, in this case, we cannot protect Rohrig's interest in maintaining the privacy of his home without diminishing his neighbors' interests in maintaining the privacy of their homes. Accordingly, we find that the governmental interest in preserving a peaceful community is all the more compelling when balanced against Rohrig's substantially weakened interest in maintaining the privacy of his home. Id. at 1522. "Having found that an important 'community caretaking' interest motivated the officers' entry in this case," the Rohrig court held that the officers' "failure to obtain a warrant does not render that entry unlawful." Id. at 1523. "Quite simply, we find nothing in the Fourth Amendment that leads us to disapprove of the officers' chosen course of action." Id. at 1525. The court also made clear the scope of its holding: We wish to emphasize the fact-specific nature of this holding. By this decision, we do not mean to fashion a broad "nuisance abatement" exception to the general rule that warrantless entries into private homes are presumptively unreasonable. We simply find that, in some cases, it would serve no Fourth Amendment purpose to require that the police obtain a warrant before taking reasonable steps to abate an immediate, ongoing, and highly objectionable nuisance, and we conclude that this is just such a case. (Id. at 1525 n.11.)