Also known as: deperdition · loss of evidence · destruction of evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The loss or destruction of evidence. Officers may take limited steps without a warrant when they reasonably believe such loss is imminent, provided the steps are tailored to the need and officers did not create the exigency through prior Fourth Amendment violations.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Detective Ramirez had probable cause that Damian Decker kept cocaine inside his apartment and was obtaining a warrant. When Decker tried to enter alone, officers held him outside for ninety minutes until the warrant arrived. The restraint prevented any loss of the drugs inside.
Officers knocked at Danielle Dixon's door announcing their presence. Hearing glass breaking inside, they entered believing she was flushing methamphetamine. The entry was justified because officers reasonably feared imminent loss of evidence and had not manufactured the exigency.
After arresting Dorothy Daniels at her home, officers obtained consent from her roommate to search a shared bedroom. The roommate's authority allowed the search even though Daniels was in custody and could no longer destroy potential evidence.
While executing a valid arrest warrant inside Diane Dawson's garage, officers saw drug paraphernalia in plain view on a workbench. They seized the items because leaving them risked immediate loss before a warrant could be obtained.
During a lawful stop of Demetrius Douglas, an officer felt a hard object that could be a weapon or drugs. The frisk uncovered heroin packets that the suspect might have discarded if released without the search.
An officer shot a fleeing burglary suspect who ignored commands to stop. The use of force was evaluated in part because the suspect's escape might have allowed destruction of stolen property still inside his residence.
Officers may enter without a warrant if they reasonably believe evidence is being destroyed and did not create the exigency by prior unlawful conduct. The belief must arise from specific facts such as sounds of flushing or breaking glass.
Supporting sources
A temporary restraint lasting about two hours is permissible when officers are diligently obtaining a warrant and the detention is narrowly tailored to prevent loss of evidence inside.
Supporting sources
…"unlike a search without a warrant incident to a lawful arrest, is not justified by any need to prevent the disappearance or destruction of evidence of crime. . . . The sole justification of the search . . . is the protection of the police officer and others nearby. . . ." 392 U. S., at 29. What we borrow now from Chimel v.…