US v. Hobbs: Hobbs’ ex-girlfriend, Foreman, called police to report that Hobbs had come to her home, brandished a firearm, used it to break a window, then “forcibly entered the home and removed a television.” ON the way out he “threatened to kill Foreman, her daughter, and other family members, and stated that if she contacted the police, he also would kill any responding officers.” Foreman told police that she had seen Hobbs with other guns in the past and that he was “obsessed with firearms.” Police also learned that Hobbs had a “violent criminal history, including convictions for robbery and attempted murder.” With that information, officers made a warrantless request to Hobbs’ mobile phone provider to access pings from his phone as well as call logs, in order to locate Hobbs. About six hours later, officers were able to make a traffic stop, arrest Hobbs, and recover a firearm from next to the car. After unsuccessfully moving to suppress the firearm, Hobbs was convicted at trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Hobbs’ motion to suppress. Hobbs argued that the exigent circumstances to the warrant requirement did not apply because “officers lacked information that he would flee from the police” and that neither the officers nor Foreman and her family were facing “imminent harm . . . because Hobbs had obtained the television he was seeking.” The court disagreed, concluding that exigent circumstances applied. It noted that while a warrant could have been obtained in six hours, providers typically took days to respond to them. In addition, the intrusion on Hobbs’ privacy was limited given the small period of time for which they were seeking information. Furthermore, officers behaved like they considered Hobbs to be dangerous, taking Foreman to the police station to keep her safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment