United States v. Isaac Christopher Grissett, United States of America v. Julio Perez-Rodriguez

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “the proper inquiry focuses on what an objective officer could reasonably believe” (citation omitted)
• instructing that the odor of mari- juana coming from a motel room provided exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry
• noting that \the officers could not have known in advance that their conduct would precipitate an emergency involving the probable destruction of evidence\ because they \identified themselves before smelling the marijuana\
• finding that “[s]ince the police had identified themselves before smelling the marijuana, an officer could reasonably conclude that the occupants of the room would attempt to dispose of the evidence before the police could return with a warrant.”
• not- ing that officers need not produce concrete proof that the occupants of the room were on the verge of destroying evidence to establish exigent circumstances
• warrantless entry of hotel room justified both by the smell of burning marijuana and the exigent circumstances that developed after the officers identified themselves to the occupants of the hotel room which the officers had approached in order to identify a weapons offender

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).