State v. DeMarco

Summary

This dissent would reject the warrantless emergency-aid entry into the defendant's home because police had nearly an hour to determine whether an actual emergency existed, had ready access to the defendant's cell-phone number, and failed to call him before entering. It concludes that the undisputed evidence rendered the trial court's contrary factual findings clearly erroneous and that the state failed to establish an objectively reasonable emergency. The dissent criticizes the majority for refusing to apply collective knowledge principles and for overlooking relevant undisputed facts.