Editing Exigent circumstance (section)

==Emergency aid doctrine==

Emergency aid doctrine is an exception to the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]], allowing warrantless entry to premises if exigent circumstances make it necessary.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.fletc.gov/audio/exigent-circumstances-mp3|title=Exigent Circumstances (MP3)|last2=Solari|first2=Jennifer|last1=Miller|first1=Tim|publisher=[[Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers]]}}</ref> A number of exceptions are classified under the general heading of criminal enforcement: where evidence of a suspected crime is in danger of being lost; where the police officers are in [[hot pursuit]]; where there is a probability that a suspect will flee before a warrant can be obtained; where a person is in need of assistance; where entry is required to prevent harm to a person.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://sddefenseattorneys.com/blog/what-are-exigent-circumstances-in-california/|title=What Are Exigent Circumstances in California?|date=October 21, 2022|last=Armstrong|first=Kerry|publisher=Law Offices of Kerry L. Armstrong APLC}}</ref> In deciding whether such entry was legal, courts will consider whether a [[reasonable man|reasonable and prudent person]] would have considered there was need to make an immediate entry.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-6-3/ALDE_00013720/|title=Amendment 4.6.3: Exigent Circumstances and Warrants|work=Constitution Annotated|publisher=[[United States Congress]]}}</ref>

In the 1925 Supreme Court case ''Carroll et al. v. United States,'' George Carroll and John Kiro were indicted and convicted for carrying "spirituous liquor" in contravention of the National Prohibition Act. Police officers had followed the defendants after their car passed their patrol car and after they caught up with them, they stopped them. After requiring them to pull over, the police officers then conducted a search of the vehicle. In finding that the search was legal, the court compared stopping and searching motor vehicles to the way that the Coast Guard are able to stop and search vessels at sea. The 1970 case of ''Chambers v. Maroney'' upheld the categorical application of the automobile exception as it applied to a car that had been searched when impounded. The court upheld the constitutionality of the search on the grounds that at the time the car was stopped, there was probable cause to conduct a search.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/267/132/|access-date=2021-12-01|website=[[Justia]]|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970)|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/399/42/|access-date=2021-12-01|website=[[Justia]]|language=en}}</ref>

In 1973, the case of ''Cady v. Dombrowski'' provided further support for the categorical application of the automotive exemption. Dombrowski, a police officer, was stopped and arrested while driving drunk. Wondering about the location of Dombrowski's service firearm, which he was meant to carry with him at all times, another police officer conducted a search of the car. In doing so, he uncovered bloodstained items, which eventually led to Dombrowski’s arrest and later conviction for murder. This evidence was admissible.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973)|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/433/|access-date=2021-12-30|website=[[Justia]]|language=en}}</ref>