Nevada

Research provided by: http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/03/Chapt2.html

Nevada Legalized Most Forms of Gambling in the State in 1931*. The Nevada Legislature was motivated to build on the tourism boom that was expected in the wake of the completion of Boulder, now Hoover, Dam. Nevada had a flourishing, albeit illegal, gambling industry prior to the legalization. The move for making gambling legal also grew out of concerns that the flourishing illegal gambling was corrupting law enforcement and prohibition was unenforceable.23 Gaming in Nevada struggled from its inception until after World War II, when the prosperity of post-war America started a boom in the fledgling industry. *with the exception of Boulder City, gambling is not legal there.

A thorough search of the US Supreme Court docket for the 2007 Term through the few cases already scheduled for the 2009-2010 Term failed to reveal a case of domestic violence, let alone one that cited Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 US 398 (2006), although it's possible such a case has been granted certiorari but not yet been published by the Clerk.

There is, however, a recent Nevada Supreme Court case that fits the criteria of your question and relies heavily on the "emergency entry" exigency clarified in Brigham City.

Hannon v. State of Nevada, 125 Nev. Adv. Op No. 15, (May 21, 2009)

In July 2006, neighbors heard Sean Hannon and his live-in girlfriend, Lea Robinson, arguing in their apartment. A next-door neighbor became concerned when he heard a heavy object thudding against the wall, accompanied by yelling and screaming, and called 911.

The Officers who arrived to investigate talked with the neighbor and confirmed the details of his story before approaching Hannon's apartment. When police knocked on the door, Robinson answered, "red-faced, crying, and breathing hard." Officers observed Hannon in the background, dressed only in underwear and appearing "angry."

The Officers interviewed Robinson through the cracked door, explaining they had received a domestic violence report, and asking if she or anyone else inside the apartment was injured. Robinson replied that no one was, but admitted to having a verbal argument with Hannon approximately 45 minutes earlier.

One of the police officers then stated he "needed to come inside to check everybody's welfare and make sure everybody was okay." When he asked Robinson's permission to enter, she refused. The officers next asked Hannon, who also refused entry.

Despite being denied access, the officers proceeded to push the door open and stepped inside. Hannon dashed into the kitchen and tossed a black bag into a cupboard. Officers then conducted a "protective sweep" of the apartment, ostensibly to ensure Robinson's safety. They observed marijuana crumbs on the kitchen counter, and drug paraphernalia in various other locations.

Based on his observation, one of the officers contacted his Sargent to request a warrant to search for drugs. Hannon asked if they planned to "tear up" his house, and offered to let them search the cabinet if they would forgo the warrant. The officers agreed, found a substantial quantity of marijuana, and arrested Hannon for possession with intent to distribute.

Hannon's attorney filed a motion in District Court to suppress evidence gathered subsequent to the officers' entry into the apartment, on the grounds that the warrantless seizure was unreasonable, and that the police had been assured no one was injured, and no one but the couple was in the apartment.

The District Court determined the nature of the 911 call created exigent circumstances that permitted police to enter on an emergency exception, citing Brigham City v. Stuart, (2006). As a result, Hannon changed his plea from "not guilty" to a conditional plea of "no contest," and began the appeals process.

Nevada Supreme Court Ruling

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the precedent set in Brigham City v. Stuart, (2006), overruled the State's own two-prong test for reasonableness of emergency home entry, and allowed officers to rely on their subjective judgment, without regard to motive, in assessing the "totality of the circumstances." This rendered objective tests moot.

The Court concluded, however, that the officers' actions were not reasonable under the Brigham City guidelines because they had not witnessed any violent acts or imminent threats of violence, nor had they observed any injury, nor was there any indication the apartment contained additional occupants, which were some of the controlling factors in Brigham City.

Based on the "totality of the circumstances," the officers had no justifiable belief that there was an immediate need to protect either Hannon or Robinson, and therefore they had no right to enter the premises without permission or a warrant.

The Court concluded the trial court should have granted Hannon's motion to suppress; the decision against Hannon was reversed.

For more information about Brigham City v. Stuart,(2006), see Related Links, below.