On October 2, 2023, the Court of Appeals of Georgia decided Jackson v. State[i], which serves as an excellent review of the law related warrantless, exigent home entry.  The relevant facts of Jackson are as follows:

[T]he evidence showed that an officer responded to a disorderly conduct call to assist other officers. The officer testified that when he arrived another officer came over and advised that “he was able to somewhat de-escalate the situation, got the wife and kids out of the house, but that Mr. Jackson was still inside and still being disorderly and armed with an orange knife in his right pocket.” Jackson was in the process of gathering his belongings, and told the officer it would take him multiple trips to get his things out of the residence. Jackson asked the officers to leave and told them they had no reason to be there and he refused to leave until the officers left.

The wife advised the officer that there was a firearm in the residence located inside the closet in the bedroom she shared with Jackson. The officer testified that he thought it was “most likely” that Jackson had more items in that closet and room so he went to confirm if there was actually a firearm in there. When Jackson returned to the room, the officer recovered the shotgun for safekeeping. When the officer discovered that Jackson was a convicted felon, he arrested Jackson.[ii]

Jackson filed a motion to suppress the firearm and the trial court denied the motion.  He was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under Georgia law.  Jackson subsequently appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

The issue on appeals was

[W]hether after the wife and her children were outside of the house and Jackson was collecting his belongings, the officer was justified in re-entering the house without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances.[iii]

On appeal, the court first examined the legal principles relevant to this issue.  The court stated

[W]arrantless intrusion of a person’s home is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, absent consent or a showing of exigent circumstances.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) State v. Ealum, 283 Ga. App. 799, 801 (643 SE2d 262) (2007). “It has been repeatedly held that reasonable concern for a victim’s welfare justifies a warrantless entry.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) State v. Driggers, 306 Ga. App. 849, 851 (1) (702 SE2d 925) (2010). “The state bears the burden of proving the lawfulness of such a search.” Ealum, 283 Ga. App. at 801; see OCGA § 17-5-30 (b) (“the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the state”).[iv]

Further, the court of appeals noted

An officer’s conduct immediately after a legal entry must be carefully limited to achieving the objective which justified the entry: the officer may do no more than is reasonably necessary to ascertain whether someone is in need of assistance and to provide that assistance.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Driggers, 306 Ga. App. at 852 (2) (b).[v]

The court then applied the facts of the case to the rules above.  First, the court noted that the officers originally received a dispatch regarding a domestic disturbance at a residence in which a wife and children may be in danger.  The court stated that the dispatch provided sufficient information to justify the initial warrantless entry, based on the exigent circumstance of ensuring the safety of the wife and children.

However, during the initial entry, the officers were able to de-escalate the disturbance and separate the wife and children from Jackson by moving the wife and children outside the residence.

The court then set out to determine if the re-entry into the residence while Jackson was gathering his belongings and the wife and children were outside was justified by exigent circumstances. The officer re-entered the residence because the wife told officers that Jackson had a firearm in their bedroom closet, and the officers wanted to secure the firearm because Jackson was still being disorderly while alone inside the residence.  The court of appeals stated

There was no evidence presented that the wife was still in danger at the time she and Jackson were outside the home. Jackson was not charged with any crime related to the domestic disturbance. There were no exigent circumstances present to justify the officer’s re-entry into the home to confirm that there was a firearm in the closet and again when he ultimately retrieved that firearm.[vi]

Therefore, the court held that the state failed to show sufficient exigent circumstances to justify the re-entry into the residence, and the seizure of the firearm was obtained through an illegal search.  Thus, the court of appeals reversed the denial of the motion of the motion to suppress.

Practice Pointers:

  • The presence of a firearm at a domestic dispute, after the exigency is eliminated, does not automatically allow an officer to re-enter a residence, without consent or a warrant, to secure the firearm for safekeeping.
  • Where there are two lawful resident’s present and one consents to entry or a search and the other objects, the police may not search the residence without a warrant (See Georgia v. Randolf, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)). The police may initially enter to stop or prevent violence, such as they did in Jackson’s case, because information provided in the dispatch indicated that the wife and children may be in danger.

Note:  Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions.  As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases.  This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.

_____________________________

Citations

[i] 369 Ga. App. 319 (2023)

[ii] Id. at 319-320

[iii] Id. at 321

[iv] Id. at 320 (emphasis added)

[v] Id. at 321 (emphasis added)

[vi] Id.