Marijuana Plant in the first house: Why did they do into the house? Heard scratching coming from the parked car and was convinced that there was someone or something in there that was trying to get out. Exigent circumstance (imminent threat to life) allows him to bust open the trunk. Came back 10 min later but that seems to be ok because fairly contemporaneous and not much could have changed. Man that was bound and gagged told him they took someone into one of two houses. The police then felt the circumstances to be exigent (imminent threat to life) so they had the right to enter the houses if reasonable to believe this man that was half-conscious. We have to look at a reasonable objective standard to determine if the cops were proper in going into the house, there were 2 houses and it was unclear as to which house they went in, but do we want our cops acting in a situation where life is threatened. The cops complied with Knock and Notice which may not have been necessary under the theory of exigent circumstance, we also have to look at the time of day, early in the morning, still dark outside, what do we want our cops doing. They did knock and identify themselves as officers, but was 10 sec long enough to wait before kicking in the door, in a situation where threat to life, probably yes. Once inside the police are allowed to search for what they are looking for, that is a person that is bound and gagged, they can look anywhere that such a person would be until they are satisfied that the bound and gagged person is not in the house. Once they entered justifiably then Plain-view kicks in and since they saw the marijuana plant in plain view it is admissible in court. Then they saw the couple who obviously had no idea what was going on, and at that point the police acted properly in getting out of the house. Sawed-off shotgun in second house: Once the police were satisfied that there was noting in the first house they now moved on to the second house. Again the question here is under an objective standard was it reasonable to believe that life was in imminent threat. If yes then they can barge right in, here there are two ways to look at it, the dude said one of those 2 houses, the first house was obviously wrong, so that could mean that the dude did not know what he was talking about, or on the other hand it could mean that the victim is obviously in the second house. If they were justified in entering then they probably did not need to knock and notice because the circumstances were exigent. Once in they are allowed to look for the victim and they did find her in a closet. The shotgun was on the floor and again according to the plain-view doctrine, subsequent to a justifiable prior intrusion anything the cop sees in plain view is legit. Here the shotgun is per se contraband so it can be seized and it is useable. Cocaine: Once the victim was found the police were supposed to stop the search, but they went on to make a custodial arrest of the guy sleeping on the bed. At this point the suspect loses all 4th amendment rights as to his person or to the area in his lunging radius, pursuant to Robinson/Chimel. In this case the police are allowed to toss the bed because he was arrested on the bed, policy concerns are to prevent destruction of evidence and protect officer safety (hogwash). The cocaine is admissible because if was obtained pursuant to Robinson/Chimel.
Random Note: After the officer makes the arrest and get the victim they need to get out of the house. They are however able to make a limited protective sweep pursuant to Buie, but only if they reasonably believe there are others in the house associated with the criminal enterprise that pose a threat to the safety of the police. In such a case the police may look for a weapon or a person. In this case there does not seem to be much evidence of that, and if that is the case then the ransom note would be the fruit of an illegal search and would be inadmissible. If the police were justified in making a protective sweep then we have a bigger issue because the police are only allowed to look for a weapon or a person. The plain view doctrine is in effect but only applies to things that are per se contraband, or things that on a very quick glance would be obviously elements of the crime. If the police noticed the note and then went over to read it, then that is going too far and no longer permissible. Ski Mask in Car: The Police went back to the car and searched it without a warrant. This is ok only if the police had PC to believe there was contraband or fruits of the crime still in the vehicle. Since they initially found the a victim in the trunk it may be reasonable to think there were additional fruits, but I would not go so far as to say probable cause. I think the finding would be that the search was illegal and the ski mask excluded.