# Criminal Defense Attorneys--Bad warrant but exigent circumstances

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminal-defense-attorneys-bad-warrant-but-exigent-circumstances/758082>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [June 22, 2016, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminal-defense-attorneys-bad-warrant-but-exigent-circumstances/758082 "2016-06-22T20:07:29Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminal-defense-attorneys-bad-warrant-but-exigent-circumstances/758082/21 "2016-07-08T16:55:52Z")

</div>

Funny you should ask:

> **['Circumstances' So 'Exigent' Narcotics Agents Could Have Watched 'Gone With...](https://www.techdirt.com/2016/07/07/circumstances-so-exigent-narcotics-agents-could-have-watched-gone-with-wind-had-time-to-spare/)**
>
> 2016-Ohio-4597 (PDF) 2016-Ohio-4597 (Text)

> [@](#):
>
> LCNA agents decided to do a “knock and talk” at appellant’s apartment to dispel their suspicions that his residence was being used to manufacture methamphetamine. Special Agent 88 testified that a “knock and talk” investigation is used when authorities do not have enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant. Agent 76 testified that regardless of whether anybody opened the door or not, they still intended to go inside the apartment due to “exigent circumstances.”
> 
> The supposed “exigent circumstances” was the suspicion that it was an active meth lab, thanks to the call agents received in which the caller said she “smelled something.” The LCNA knock and talk received no answer (initially) and the agents smelled nothing indicating a batch of meth was currently cooking.

Where’s agent 86 when you need him?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminal-defense-attorneys-bad-warrant-but-exigent-circumstances/758082/22 "2016-07-08T18:15:25Z")

</div>

> [@md2000](#):
>
> Funny you should ask:  
> ['Circumstances' So 'Exigent' Narcotics Agents Could Have Watched 'Gone With The Wind' And Had Time To Spare | Techdirt](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160704/17363034890/circumstances-so-exigent-narcotics-agents-could-have-watched-gone-with-wind-had-time-to-spare.shtml)  
> Where’s agent 86 when you need him?

I liked Agent 99 better.

As I would have guessed the search was ruled unconstitutional.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminal-defense-attorneys-bad-warrant-but-exigent-circumstances/758082/23 "2016-07-08T18:21:04Z")

</div>

> [@Loach](#):
>
> I liked Agent 99 better.
> 
> As I would have guessed the search was ruled unconstitutional.

Would you believe… it was?

> [@](#):
>
> A warrantless search for criminal evidence – absent of anything supporting warrantless entry – is a search that may as well have never taken place. The lower court’s judgment is reversed, resulting in suppressed evidence and, very likely, the overturning of a conviction.

Sorry about that, chief.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criminal-defense-attorneys-bad-warrant-but-exigent-circumstances/758082.md?page=1)