However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement that are considered exigent circumstances. In case you’re unfamiliar with this terminology, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely provided some insight into what constitutes exigent circumstances as follows:
- Police may enter a home to render emergency assistance when someone is injured or needs protection from imminent injury.
- Law enforcement authorities don’t need a warrant when there is a fire on the premises.
- Hot pursuit of a criminal suspect constitutes a reason for warrantless entry. For example, chasing an armed robber into a building represents an exigent circumstance. Police are also able to search for weapons.
- Issues concerning the destruction of evidence constitute a reason for entering a home.
In the meantime, what happens if you dispute the reason for law enforcement authorities entering your home without a warrant? Can you be arrested for obstructing their entry? Earlier this year, the New Jersey State Supreme Court considered a matter involving a defendant accused of holding the police off from entering his house. He felt they needed a warrant. The case offers some interesting insight.
Defendant Disagreed with Warrantless Entry
On March 12, 2014, the Cliffside Park Police Department received a call regarding a potential domestic violence incident. Two officers responded to the scene and knocked on the door. Andrew Fede partially opened the door, keeping its chained lock in place. The police explained they were there to check on the well-being of the occupants. Fede told the officers that he was alone in the apartment. Although he lived there with his girlfriend, she was away out of state.
Despite Fede’s assertions, the police reaffirmed their intention to enter the premises. In response, the defendant told them that they needed a warrant. The officers explained their role under the community-caretaking doctrine, a recognized exception to warrantless entry. Attempts were made to defuse the situation. With Fede at the door with the chain lock in place, the policemen suggested the defendant speak with their supervisors. Fede remained unconvinced that he needed to allow the cops in without a warrant.
- Meanwhile, the officers continued to express concern over the initial concern regarding the welfare of someone in the apartment. They, therefore, broke past the chain lock and into the apartment. Truth be told, New Jersey courts continually emphasize the need to investigate domestic violence matters.
Ultimately, a search of the premises validated Fede’s assertions. He was alone in his house. That said, the police still arrested Fede. They charged him with obstruction of the law. According to NJSA 2C:29-1, it is a criminal offense when someone “purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function.”
Obstructing Administration of Law
- That said, the Supreme Court decided otherwise and reversed the defendant’s conviction. Why did they disagree with the rulings made by three lower courts?
Supreme Court Ruling
It wasn’t as if Fede chain locked the door to keep the officers out. The chain was already in place when the police arrived on the scene. Therefore, there was no physical activity that could be viewed as interference. The bottom line was that Fede’s response did not constitute an affirmative action and he was therefore not guilty of obstructing the administration of law.
Contact Us
At the Law Offices of Anthony Carbone, we keep up to date on changes in the law. With over three decades of dedicated legal experience, we strive for the best results for our clients. Give us a call at 201-829-3805 if you are facing criminal charges. We look forward to working with you!