AL MENASTER'S TAKE ON PEOPLE V. HUA-EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES DON'T EXIST TO BREAK INTO A HOUSE FOR A LITTLE GRASS
I can't help but laugh when I review Los Angeles Public Defender Al Menaster's commentary on new California criminal cases. Here's the newest comenatry on People v. Hua, which I posted earlier in the week. Clikc HERE to see that post.
Menaster's commentary:
In Welsh v. Wisconsin (466 US 740), the US Supremes held that the exigency exception to the requirement that the police have a warrant in order to enter a home applies only where the crime being investigated isn't minor.
In Welsh, the crime was driving under the influence; the US Supremes held that this crime was too minor to permit invasion of a home without a warrant.
Of course, the Cal. Supremes upheld entry of a home based on exigent circumstances for a DUI, saying that in Cal., a DUI was so much more serious than a DUI in Wisconsin. Right...
Anyway, this case involves a police entry into a home to investigate the serious crime of, drum roll please, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. Even this C/A can't stomach this one. They apply Welsh and hold that the entry can't be justified by exigent circumstances.
People v. Hua; 2008 DJ DAR 409; DJ, 1/14/08; C/A 1st
