I appeared in the United States Court of Appeals yesterday to argue an issue addressing the continuing erosion of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects our rights as individuals to be free from unlawful searches and seizures by law enforcement. A search of a person’s home without a search warrant is presumed unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Generally, evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search cannot be used against an individual in court.
However, there are several exceptions to the search warrant requirement which can allow law enforcement to enter a home even without a search warrant in connection with criminal activity such as when law enforcement is pursuing a person or upon a belief that evidence might be destroyed – such as drugs. But this was not the situation when law enforcement entered my client’s home.
The facts of my client’s case are public record. A shed had caught fire in a rural area. Firemen and law enforcement reported to the scene. The shed that was on fire was located some distance behind the house; the house was in no danger of catching fire. Fireman learned upon arrival that a neighbor who reported the fire had moved a truck that was previously close to the burning shed. There was a dog in the cab of the truck and the neighbor found a rifle lying on the ground. None of the residents of the house could be located. The house itself was dark. There were no lights on inside the house. There was no sound coming from the house. The house was locked. There was no report of anyone injured or in need of assistance. Despite that there was no evidence of a crime, law enforcement thought that the situation was suspicious with a shed fire, a dog in the truck and a rifle on the ground. Law enforcement used keys found in the truck to enter my client’s house.
Law enforcement entered my client’s home without obtaining a search warrant claiming that they thought there was a possibility that someone might be hurt or injured inside the house. Since when does the possibility that a person might be injured justify law enforcement entering a person’s locked house without a warrant? Since when can law enforcement enter our homes without a search warrant when they are not investigating criminal activity? This is exactly the issue I argued at the Court of Appeals.
The community caretaker exception arguably allows law enforcement to enter a person’s home when there is no evidence of a crime; however, in order for the community caretaker exception to apply, law enforcement must reasonably believe an emergency exists. In this instance, there was no emergency. Law enforcement never articulated what was the emergency that justified entry into the house. Law enforcement was on the property for nearly an hour before attempting to enter the house which seems like an unreasonably long time to wait before entering a house if there is truly an emergency requiring immediate action. The evidence itself, or more importantly, the lack of evidence, suggests that there was no emergency. The officer’s belief that an emergency existed was unreasonable. What if my client simply left the house to go to the grocery store or to dinner?
The Court of Appeals does not issue immediate rulings. I will be waiting to learn the outcome. But, the continuing expansion of the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement should be a concern to all of us who value our liberty interests to be free from governmental intrusion into our lives and home.
Scott Hamblin is a lawyer and shareholder in the law firm of Brydon Swearengen & England P.C. Scott regularly practices in the area of criminal law and family law. For more information regarding your rights, please contact Scott at www.scotthamblinlaw.com or you mail email Scott at scotthamblin@brydonlaw.com.
A Jefferson City man faced DUI charges following a field sobriety test. Charges against the defendant were dropped after Scott successfully maintained the client’s claims that the test results were inaccurate. While the client initially appeared to be in a difficult situation, Scott was able to push investigators to determine the sobriety test results as invalid, so the charges were dismissed.
A mother was seeking sole custody of her children following a divorce. The father refused to cooperate, leaving the client in a difficult situation as she felt as though her children didn’t have a voice. Scott recognized her need for an advocate and carefully listened to the children’s wishes, which conclusively helped the client achieve sole custody of her children and protected their best interests.
A client from Fulton was accused of drug possession as a result of a home search. While drug charges may potentially be filed as a Class C felony involving severe consequences, Scott was able to help the client receive a reduced sentence. Ultimately, the client faced significantly smaller penalties compared to the initial charges.
Scott assisted a defendant in a particularly challenging divorce case in which the other spouse was not cooperating. Scott was able to help the client avoid court through an aggressive legal approach to resolve all outstanding disagreements while maintaining the client’s long-term needs.
One client sought legal assistance after an altercation with another individual in Jefferson City. The client was arrested on assault charges despite allegedly not starting the fight. Since an arrest can lead to life-altering penalties such as being terminated from employment and serving jail time, Scott was able to build a solid legal defense in the client’s favor and argued in favor of the client’s innocence.
A grandparent sought visitation rights to his grandchild after the parent tried to block him. Scott takes grandparents’ rights very seriously, and so he devised a strategy to help the grandparent set a visitation schedule. Scott developed a strategy to show that the child’s best interests were fulfilled through the grandparent’s ability to visit the child, helping push the case towards a resolution in the client’s favor.
Scott assisted a client who was injured in a car accident due to another driver’s negligence. The defendant claimed that the opposing party using their phone at the time of the crash, and Scott emphasized this claim to show that the other driver was at fault for the client’s injuries. The case concluded with the client receiving the necessary compensation for medical bills following a long hospital stay due to injuries.
Scott is the best attorney, hands down! My husband had a fairly difficult case, he had little hope that he’d be able to receive anything he was asking for and Scott helped him achieve everything, very quickly. He’s very professional, compassionate and understanding and works hard to help you achieve the best possible outcome. We are very thankful.
Scott came highly recommended by an attorney friend of mine after I received an unfavorable outcome working with a different lawyer in the area. Scott was smart, pleasant to work with, and achieved the best possible outcome for me. I only wish I would have used him sooner.
We had a very unique case. It was confusing and complicated. Scott stepped in, helped and guided us on our journey. He was knowledgeable, professional and very honest with us. I highly recommend him if you are put in a circumstance where you need an attorney. His integrity is amazing. The entire firm was wonderful to us.
Scott Hamblin is reliable, trustworthy, very professional, and hardworking. I highly recommend him for any of your lawyer needs.
I have been working with Mr. Hamblin for almost one and a half years and consider him to be one of the finest Lawyers I have ever done business with. Mr. Hamblin’s understanding of Missouri law is to say the least encyclopedic. His areas of expertise are broad and far-reaching. While working with Mr. Hamblin I found that he has an innate gift for what he does. His availability, presence in the courtroom, and demeanor with prosecutors, plaintiffs, witnesses and defendants are unparalleled in Missouri’s capital. Jefferson City is the epicenter of all legislation in this great state of Missouri,…
Scott was efficient and knew his stuff. Very thorough and committed to our family. He had worked on two different cases for us and did an excellent job. No regrets!
I called Mr. Hamblin to represent my family member. When we went in to have a meeting, Mr. Hamblin was very honest said he felt that he could represent him and help with the matter that he had been charged with. I was so glad that I had contacted Mr. Hamblin on this matter, because he did just what he said that he would do. He did so in a timely and professional matter, and the expense was very minimal considering that this could have been a life-changing matter. I want to say a big Thank you Mr. Hamblin for…
Very upfront and honest about the potential outcomes of my case.
Scott Hamblin represented my son in a high-profile case. Scott was highly professional throughout the course of the proceedings, prompt and thorough in answering all of our questions and, most importantly, was very prepared when he represented my son in the courtroom, which resulted in a very favorable outcome. Our family cannot thank Scott enough for a job well done and 5 stars is really not enough. He truly did a phenomenal job. I would have no reservations in recommending Scott should you ever need a criminal defense attorney.
Mr. Hamblin succeeded in winning a child custody modification case for me that most lawyers I spoke with wouldn't even take on. Many told me that modifying a child custody agreement was nearly impossible. Due to the changes at my children's Father's house and the toll it was taking on their mental health, my children needed this modification and were begging for a change. Mr. Hamblin helped give my children a voice and get what they call "A Christmas Miracle" when we won full custody of them a few days before Christmas. I would recommend his counsel to anyone needing…
For accessible and experienced representation, contact attorney Scott Hamblin today.
NUVEW | Copyright 2023 All Rights Reserved | Accessibility Notice
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising. This information is designed for general information only. The information presented should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Past results and testimonials are not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction of the outcome of your case, and should not be construed as such. Past results cannot guarantee future performance. Any result in a single case is not meant to create an expectation of similar results in future matters because each case involves many different factors, therefore, results will differ on a case-by-case basis. By providing certain contact information herein, you are expressly authorizing the recipient of this message to contact you via the methods of communication provided.
