Circuit split · criminal procedure
Whether the Fourth Amendment's exigent-circumstances doctrine justifies a warrantless entry or seizure during a prolonged armed standoff, and how such exigency is to be analyzed
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Fisher v. City of San Jose475 F3D 1049
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · January 16, 2007
“The majority’s decision creates a clear circuit split on how to analyze the exigent circumstances in an armed standoff, because it cannot be reconciled with the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Estate of Bing.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- On the other side · 6th Cir.Estate of Bing v. City of Whitehall456 F.3d 555
“City of Whitehall, analyzed a strikingly similar situation involving an armed standoff with an unstable, possibly intoxicated person and decided “that exigency did not terminate due to the passage of time or the police’s actions.” 456 F.3d 555 , 565 (6th Cir.2006).” — Fisher v. City of San Jose, acknowledging the split
What the split turns on
- Doctrines & tests:
- exigent circumstances doctrine
- Constitutional provisions:
- Fourth Amendment
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.