Kenfield
United States v. Kenfield
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Davy Kenfield appeals the district court’s denial of his suppression motion and his sentence for receipt and possession of child pornography. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (a)(5)(B). We affirm.
1. Regarding the suppression motion: Although “[i]t is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable .... the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions.” Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 , 126 S.Ct. 1943 , 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “One exigency obviating the requirement of a warrant is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.” Id.
We review contentions that such an emergency justified a warrantless home entry under a two-pronged test, asking whether:
United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 952 (9th Cir.2008). “[I]f law enforcement, while responding to an emergency, discovers evidence of illegal activity, that evidence is admissible even if there was not probable cause to believe that such evidence would be found.” Id. (quotation marks and alteration omitted).