Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Denise Brown v. State of New Jersey (076656) (Cumberland County and Statewide)
Citations: 230 N.J. 84; 165 A.3d 735; 2017 WL 3140608; 2017 N.J. LEXIS 805Docket: A-71-15
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey; July 24, 2017; New Jersey; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The syllabus outlines a case where Denise Brown appealed against the State of New Jersey and police detectives regarding the application of qualified immunity under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA). The case stems from an investigation into a home invasion in October 2008, during which Brown's blue BMW was linked to the crime after being loaned to her boyfriend, Carlos Thomas, who was arrested during a traffic stop. Detective Eskridge discovered contraband in Brown's car and pursued a search of her home after receiving a tip about a stolen locket allegedly given to Brown by Thomas. When detectives approached Brown for consent to search her home, she refused, prompting concerns from Detective Steet that she might destroy evidence. The detectives offered her the option to either remain outside or enter with an escort. Brown chose to enter, and Detective Steet accompanied her while Detective Eskridge left to obtain a warrant. Upon returning with the warrant, Eskridge searched the apartment. Brown subsequently filed a complaint against the State and the detectives, who invoked qualified immunity. The motion for summary judgment was denied for the State Police and Detective Steet, but a jury later ruled in favor of the defendants. The Appellate Division later reversed the ruling on Detective Steet's qualified immunity, citing a constitutional violation. However, the Supreme Court found that the law regarding the entry to secure a home pending a warrant was unclear and that Detective Steet did not violate a "clearly established" right, thus granting him qualified immunity. Determining a governmental official's entitlement to qualified immunity involves two main inquiries: whether the facts, viewed favorably for the injured party, show a constitutional rights violation, and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the official's actions. Typically, the court, not the jury, decides on qualified immunity, and the trial court did not clarify its ruling on the legality of the police entry into Brown’s apartment prior to trial, highlighting a need for transparency in future proceedings. Brown claims her rights under the New Jersey Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, were violated by the police's warrantless entry. Such searches are generally presumed invalid unless justified by recognized exceptions, such as exigent circumstances, which the Attorney General conceded did not apply here. Instead, the Attorney General argues that the entry was lawful under U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowing police to secure premises while awaiting a search warrant, specifically referencing the split decision in Segura v. United States and subsequent clarification in Illinois v. McArthur. Despite these precedents, the New Jersey Supreme Court has not addressed the constitutionality of securing a home while awaiting a warrant, and appellate court interpretations remain inconsistent. Recent cases have not provided relevant guidance for this situation as they were decided after the conduct in question. As of November 20, 2008, the law was not sufficiently clear to conclude that Detective Steet violated established rights by securing Brown’s home. Although police department policies do not heavily influence qualified immunity, Steet's reliance on State Police training is relevant. Consequently, he is entitled to qualified immunity regarding Brown’s New Jersey Civil Rights Act claim because any constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time. Going forward, the court affirms that police may enter a dwelling in cases of genuine exigency and probable cause, but not based on police-created exigencies intended to bypass the warrant requirement. Furthermore, a person's exercise of their right to refuse consent for a search cannot justify a warrantless entry. Law enforcement officials are prohibited from using McArthur to justify entering an apartment to secure it while waiting for a search warrant. Officers are required to obtain a warrant before entering a home; however, they may secure the apartment from the outside for a reasonable duration if necessary. The Appellate Division's judgment has been reversed, and the trial court's dismissal of the action against Detective Steet has been reinstated. Justice Albin dissents, arguing that securing a home while awaiting a warrant is only permissible under exigent circumstances. He contends that Denise Brown had a right to remain secure in her home, as no exigent circumstances justified the seizure of her apartment, thereby denying Detective Steet qualified immunity. The Supreme Court of New Jersey decided this case, which involves claims brought under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA) regarding the violation of Brown's state constitutional rights when officers entered her apartment without consent or a warrant. Although probable cause existed, Brown refused to allow the officers to secure her apartment. The search warrant was obtained later on the same day while investigating a burglary related to her boyfriend. To assess the applicability of qualified immunity, two key inquiries must be addressed: whether the plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated when officers required her to be accompanied inside her apartment to secure the premises while awaiting a search warrant, and whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time, such that a reasonable officer would have been aware of the violation. The second inquiry protects officers who act reasonably under the law, but if an officer knew or should have known about the violation of a clear constitutional right, they lose immunity. The actions in question from 2008 were found inconsistent with Article I, Paragraph 7 of the State Constitution, which prohibits warrantless entry without consent, even under claims of exigent circumstances. However, due to ambiguities in the law regarding securing a home pending a warrant and the exigent circumstances exception, the defendant officer did not violate a "clearly established" right. Thus, qualified immunity applies, and Brown's claim against the remaining officer was correctly dismissed by the trial court. The case proceeded to trial, where the issue of qualified immunity was mentioned but not fully resolved pre-trial, as the court sent factual disputes to the jury before addressing the immunity question. The facts of the underlying events relate to a 2008 State Police investigation into a home invasion in Cape May County. Two armed men forcibly entered a home, leading to a police investigation. On November 12, 2008, Brown loaned her blue BMW to her boyfriend, Carlos Thomas, who was later arrested during a traffic stop. He was suspected of involvement in the burglary, and the State Police impounded Brown's vehicle. On November 19, Detective Eskridge obtained a search warrant for the car, informed Brown, and searched it on November 20, discovering items linked to the home invasion. Further investigation led to a tip regarding a stolen locket allegedly given to Brown by Thomas, prompting a decision to search Brown's home. Detective Eskridge, following the Assistant Prosecutor’s advice, prioritized executing a search warrant on Brown's car to gather evidence for a potential search of her apartment. Testimony from Detective Steet confirmed that probable cause for searching Brown's home did not exist until after the car's search was completed. The car search occurred on the morning of November 20, before 10 a.m. Eskridge opted to seek consent for a home search instead of obtaining a warrant first. Upon arriving at Brown's apartment around 10 a.m., the detectives informed her of a tip regarding a stolen locket and requested consent to search her home, which she immediately refused, insisting they obtain a warrant. The conversation lasted approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Steet became concerned that Brown might destroy evidence if left alone, prompting the detectives to offer options to secure the premises while they awaited a warrant. Brown chose to enter her apartment with Steet accompanying her, while Eskridge went to obtain the warrant. Other officers arrived approximately an hour later and waited in the kitchen with Brown until Eskridge returned with the warrant, which took several hours due to jurisdictional issues. At around 1:30 p.m., Brown left with the officers after stating she had to go to work. Despite having the option to use a nearby restroom, Brown insisted on using her own bathroom, which required the presence of a female officer for oversight due to departmental policy. During this time, she experienced no privacy while using her facilities, as a female officer accompanied her. The motion court denied summary judgment for all officers present during a bathroom search incident due to disputed facts regarding the search type (visual, strip, or cavity). Despite some confusion regarding the qualified immunity issues, Brown’s counsel chose not to address it before trial, allowing the jury to resolve these matters. The appeal centers on the legality of the officers' entry into Brown's apartment, claiming a violation of Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Brown sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, a declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. Defendants denied the allegations and asserted qualified immunity. Summary judgment was granted for some defendants but denied for the State Police and Detective Steet. The trial court decided the jury should first address material facts before resolving legal questions about immunity. The jury ruled in favor of the defendants, concluding Brown did not demonstrate that the State Police lacked a valid concern for evidence destruction, failed to balance law enforcement needs with her privacy, restricted her movements unlawfully, or did so for an unreasonable time. Brown's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the JNOV denial for the State Police but reversed the qualified immunity ruling for Detective Steet, finding his warrantless entry into Brown's home unconstitutional due to a fabricated exigency based on the officers’ disclosure and her refusal of consent. The panel distinguished this case from Illinois v. McArthur, asserting that the entry severely intruded upon Brown's constitutional privacy rights without genuine exigency. The panel deemed qualified immunity inapplicable and remanded for damages against Detective Steet. The Attorney General's certification petition was granted, and the ACLU-NJ was permitted to appear as amicus curiae. The State argues for the reversal of the Appellate Division's decision denying Detective Steet qualified immunity, citing Supreme Court precedents, particularly the case of McArthur. The State maintains that police officers with probable cause can allow occupants to either remain outside while awaiting a search warrant or enter with police accompaniment. It references State v. Wright, which determined that while warrantless entry was unlawful, officers could secure a home from the outside to prevent evidence tampering while waiting for a warrant. The State contends the Appellate Division wrongly deemed the situation as involving impermissible police-created exigency, asserting that the situation stemmed from reasonable police conduct, as established in Kentucky v. King. The State does not claim exigent circumstances as the basis for entry but argues that Detective Steet's actions were constitutional based on reasonable interpretations of McArthur and King. Conversely, Brown argues for the affirmation of the Appellate Division's ruling, asserting her constitutional rights were violated because Detective Steet entered her home without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or consent. She contends that the reliance on McArthur is misplaced, emphasizing that it requires evidence of exigency for entry. Brown claims that exigency only arose after she was informed of the search's purpose and had refused consent. She asserts that qualified immunity should not apply, as established law prohibits warrantless home entry without genuine exigency, and a refusal of consent does not create such circumstances. The ACLU-NJ supports Brown's position, arguing that the State lacked sufficient exigency for a warrantless entry and warns against expanding exigent-circumstances law in this context. The ACLU-NJ highlights the minimal law enforcement interest in retrieving the stolen item compared to the significant infringement on Brown’s privacy rights and contends Detective Steet should not receive qualified immunity due to unlawful police conduct that ignored her privacy interests. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from personal liability for discretionary actions taken while performing their duties, provided their conduct does not breach clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would recognize. This doctrine mirrors the federal standard and applies to Civil Rights Act claims in New Jersey, shielding officials unless they are "plainly incompetent" or knowingly violate the law. To determine if an official like Detective Steet is entitled to qualified immunity, courts assess whether the facts, viewed favorably for the injured party, demonstrate a constitutional violation and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the official's actions. The assessment involves considering the state of the law and facts at the time of the alleged violation, and either prong of the analysis can be addressed first. Generally, qualified immunity is a legal question for the court, allowing for early resolution before trial, except in cases with disputed factual issues, which may necessitate jury consideration for historical facts. In the current case, defendants claimed qualified immunity in their summary judgment motion, asserting that McArthur provided the relevant constitutional standard. The trial court identified factual disputes regarding the circumstances surrounding the restriction of a private restroom use and a contested search, granting summary judgment for some defendants but denying it for others, including Detective Steet, who were present during the incident. While the legality of the initial entry into the apartment was not clearly ruled upon before trial, the case proceeded on factual issues linked to that entry, with qualified immunity being a critical aspect during the trial. The trial court included four issues on the verdict sheet related to the application of McArthur to the case, intending for the jury to determine these factual matters to inform its legal decision on qualified immunity. The court indicated that the jury would assess whether there was an illegal seizure during the police entry into Brown's apartment, which could impact the court's ruling on qualified immunity. If the jury found that the officers had a right to be present, the case would conclude from their perspective. The court noted the unusual procedural approach to qualified immunity, suggesting that clearer reasoning for deferring this decision in future cases would be beneficial. Brown claims that the police entry violated her constitutional right to be secure in her home against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is generally presumed invalid without a warrant unless it meets specific exceptions. The Attorney General acknowledged that exigent circumstances did not justify the entry but argued that the entry was lawful under Supreme Court precedent allowing officers to secure premises while awaiting a search warrant. The relevant case, Segura v. United States, illustrates a split in the Court regarding whether securing a dwelling based on probable cause, to prevent evidence loss, constitutes an unreasonable seizure. While two Justices supported this action under the assumption of exigency, four Justices deemed the prolonged occupation unconstitutional due to the intrusive nature of the police oversight of personal effects. Officers have complete control over an apartment and its contents while awaiting a search warrant, but the ruling in Segura did not clarify whether officers could secure a residence from inside or outside. This ambiguity was addressed in McArthur, where the Supreme Court upheld the temporary prevention of a defendant from entering his home until a search warrant was obtained. In McArthur, police were at the defendant's mobile home for a domestic situation when they learned of hidden drugs. After being denied consent to search, one officer stayed behind while the other went to get a warrant, preventing the defendant from entering alone for two hours. When allowed to briefly enter for cigarettes and a phone call, the officer monitored him from the doorway. The Court ruled that this action did not violate the Fourth Amendment, considering factors like probable cause for contraband, the risk of the defendant destroying evidence, the officer's reasonable balancing of law enforcement needs against privacy interests, and the minimal duration of restraint. The Court noted the officer's presence was due to the defendant's choice to re-enter for convenience, describing the restraint as minimally intrusive. The overlap between McArthur and exigent circumstances indicates that both warrantless home entries require a showing of urgent law enforcement needs. This aligns with precedents that acknowledge that probable cause combined with exigency can justify police actions without a warrant. The qualified immunity analysis in this appeal is complicated by the potential overlap of two exceptions, prompting a close examination of the Attorney General’s reliance on the McArthur justification. New Jersey courts have not definitively addressed the constitutionality of securing a home to prevent access while awaiting a search warrant since the McArthur decision. Appellate courts have varied in their interpretations: some have allowed premises to be secured without exigent circumstances (e.g., State v. Josey), while others have permitted entry to secure evidence only when exigent circumstances are present (e.g., State v. Myers). Additionally, one trial court ruled that officers can enter a home based on probable cause alone, without exigency, to secure it while obtaining a warrant (State v. Speid). Generally, prior to 2008, warrantless entry into a home required occupant consent or a demonstration of probable cause and exigent circumstances (State v. Hutchins). The preferred method without exigency was to secure the home from outside (State v. Stott). However, there are exceptions, such as in State v. Alvarez, which allowed warrantless entry into a hotel room to prevent evidence destruction due to unique risks. In a 2015 case, the court addressed whether a police officer acted unconstitutionally in entering a home at a landlord's request after contraband was discovered, emphasizing that the proper procedure is to obtain a warrant based on third-party information. Law enforcement may secure a residence from the outside for a reasonable time to prevent evidence tampering or destruction, as established in McArthur. However, officers cannot insist on accompanying an individual into their home to retrieve identification during a Terry investigation, as ruled in State v. Legette, where the court found such conduct unconstitutional. The latest legal guidance emphasizes the necessity of a warrant or clear consent for officers to enter a home. The determination of whether a constitutional right was clearly established at the time of an alleged violation is crucial for evaluating qualified immunity. In this case, Detective Steet is entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established that his conduct was unlawful on the date of the home entry (November 20, 2008). The Attorney General argues that Steet’s actions were reasonable based on McArthur and police training, asserting that the legal boundaries for securing a home pending a warrant were not well-defined in New Jersey at that time. Consequently, ambiguity in McArthur and inconsistent interpretations by the Appellate Division support the conclusion that a reasonable officer would not have recognized Steet's actions as unlawful. As of November 20, 2008, McArthur did not specify the limits for officers securing a residence while awaiting a search warrant, affirming that officers may prevent a suspect's reentry to preserve evidence within the home. The Court referenced Segura, where it was agreed that officers could lawfully seal an apartment from the outside while waiting for a warrant. However, McArthur does not rule out the possibility that officers may lawfully enter a home to secure it if the occupant insists on entry. The Court observed that the officer prevented McArthur from entering his home unless accompanied by police but did not clarify if the officer could accompany him inside. During the warrant wait, the officer monitored McArthur from inside the door, which the Court classified as mere “observation,” and stated this limited entry minimized significant intrusion into the home. Citing Payton v. New York and United States v. United States District Court, the Court emphasized that physical entry into a home is a primary concern of the Fourth Amendment. The Court ranked intrusions, finding it a greater intrusion to conduct a warrantless arrest or search than to temporarily prevent someone from entering their home. It also determined that prohibiting reentry entirely is a greater intrusion than allowing it under observation. However, it did not address the implications of warrantless entry for extended observation, leaving ambiguity in McArthur's ruling. Consequently, McArthur does not clearly establish that Detective Steet acted unlawfully when entering Brown’s home to secure it, nor does it clarify if he could offer Brown the choice of waiting for the warrant outside or inside with police presence. As of November 2008, there had been no New Jersey court interpretation of McArthur to define permissible police actions under the New Jersey Constitution. Although McArthur was cited in Wright to support securing premises from the outside rather than entering without a warrant, Wright’s guidance was not available to Detective Steet at the time of his actions, as the decision was made in 2015. New Jersey's legal precedent regarding the seizure of individuals and homes was unclear as of 2008. The only notable case citing McArthur was State v. Nikola, which determined that an officer could enter a garage without a warrant after the defendant had already been seized during a temporary investigative detention. There was no definitive ruling from New Jersey courts on the conflicting interpretations of Segura concerning an officer's occupation of a home while awaiting a search warrant. Some appellate decisions suggested that securing a home from within could be reasonable, while others deemed it unconstitutional without exigent circumstances or if officers could have secured it externally. One Law Division case interpreted Segura as allowing warrantless occupation pending a search warrant, but this interpretation was not supported by subsequent appellate rulings. Consequently, the lack of clear precedent suggested that Detective Steet's actions did not violate "clearly established law" when he entered Brown's home to secure it. Although police department policies are not central to qualified immunity analyses, they can provide context. Detective Steet's reliance on State Police training, which permitted officers to await warrants inside a home if the occupant consented, was deemed informative regarding the reasonableness of his actions. Ultimately, Detective Steet was granted qualified immunity concerning Brown’s NJCRA claim, as the constitutional right in question was not clearly established at the time of his actions. The court also acknowledged the exigency exception to the warrant requirement for future reference. Police can enter a home without a warrant only in cases of true exigency and probable cause. Police-created exigency, intended to bypass the warrant requirement, is not a valid justification for warrantless entry. Exigency must arise from reasonable police conduct aimed at gathering evidence of criminal activity. A person's constitutional right to refuse consent for a search cannot be interpreted as indicative of wrongdoing and cannot justify warrantless entry. In this case, Detective Steet's attempt to enter Brown's home based on her refusal to consent to a search after being informed of the object of the search (a gold locket necklace) violates her rights. Individuals have the right to refuse consent to searches and to close their doors to law enforcement. Furthermore, law enforcement cannot rely on past interpretations of case law (McArthur) to justify securing a residence without a warrant; they must obtain a warrant and may only secure the premises from the outside if necessary. Despite the Attorney General's argument that Detective Steet's reliance on McArthur justified his actions, the court concludes that he is entitled to qualified immunity due to the unclear application of McArthur at the time of his conduct. The Appellate Division's judgment is reversed, and the trial court's dismissal of the action against Detective Steet is reinstated. Justices Rabner, Patterson, Fernandez-Vina, Solomon, and Timpone concur, while Justice Albin dissents. Defendants include New Jersey State Trooper, Vineland Chief of Police Timothy Codispoti, and several Vineland Police Officers, all acting in both individual and official capacities. Justice Albin dissents regarding the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as outlined in the 1791 Federal Bill of Rights and the 1844 New Jersey State Constitution. This protection mandates that law enforcement officials cannot enter or seize a home without a warrant, except under limited circumstances. In 2008, police believed Denise Brown had a stolen locket but did not suspect her of theft or knowingly receiving stolen property. Despite having time to obtain a warrant, they sought her consent to search her home. Brown lawfully denied consent, yet the police proceeded to seize her home for six hours without a warrant, lacking exigent circumstances. During this time, she was effectively imprisoned in her own home and denied privacy, including access to her bathroom. The Appellate Division ruled that Brown’s constitutional rights were violated, entitling her to damages. While the majority acknowledged this violation, they controversially concluded that her right was not clearly established at the time, granting qualified immunity to the officer involved and denying Brown a remedy under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. Justice Albin dissents, arguing that the majority’s decision lacks support in legal precedent and undermines the right to seek relief for violations of civil rights, asserting that the police officer violated Brown's clearly established right to be secure in her home. Additionally, a related incident involved burglars stealing from a Cape May County residence. Carlos Thomas, the boyfriend of plaintiff Denise Brown, was arrested on November 12, 2008, after driving her blue BMW with a suspended license, leading to the vehicle's impoundment. He faced burglary charges that were later dismissed. Following his arrest, the State Police received a tip from the mother of a potential victim, alleging that Thomas had given Brown a stolen diamond locket. However, Brown denied receiving any such item, and no locket was found during a subsequent search of her apartment. On November 19, 2008, State Police Detective Christian Eskridge obtained a warrant to search Brown's vehicle, where he found jewelry, drugs, and a gun holster, but not the locket. Despite having probable cause for a search warrant for Brown's home, Detective Eskridge opted to seek her consent instead. When approached by detectives, Brown refused to consent, citing her lack of involvement and the hearsay nature of their inquiry. The detectives then presented her with two unfavorable options: leave her apartment while they obtained a warrant or remain under police supervision. Fearing she might destroy evidence, they decided to monitor her closely. For approximately three and a half hours, Brown was followed throughout her home without privacy. When she left for work, the police secured the apartment and returned later with a search warrant, entering with a key provided by her mother. The search yielded no evidence related to the alleged locket. Ultimately, Brown was never charged with any crime. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the State and Detective Steet under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, alleging violations of her constitutional rights. The jury ruled in favor of the defendants, and the trial court denied Brown's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Appellate Division overturned the denial of the JNOV motion regarding Detective Steet, determining that his warrantless entry into Brown's residence was unlawful as a matter of law. The court concluded that Detective Steet was not entitled to qualified immunity because his own testimony clearly indicated that this entry violated Brown's rights under the New Jersey Constitution, which were well-established at the time of the incident. All claims against other defendants were dismissed, along with any claims under the Fourth Amendment. Qualified immunity, which shields government officials from civil damages unless they violate clearly established rights, was inapplicable to Detective Steet's actions. The legal standards require that officials understand when their conduct infringes upon established constitutional rights, emphasizing that the right must be evident enough for a reasonable official to recognize its violation. Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, echoing the Fourth Amendment's intent to prevent unlawful entry into homes. The court highlighted that consent is essential for lawful entry; in this case, Brown explicitly refused to allow entry without a warrant, reinforcing her constitutional rights. No exceptions justified the warrantless entry, and Detective Steet could not invoke exigent circumstances to legitimize his actions. Exigent circumstances allow for a warrantless search when law enforcement lacks sufficient time to obtain a warrant, particularly when there is probable cause and a risk of evidence destruction. In this case, State Police detectives had probable cause to obtain a warrant to search Brown’s apartment but opted for convenience instead. The court stated that the search cannot be justified by mere inconvenience or a slight delay in obtaining a warrant. Additionally, police cannot create their own exigency to bypass the warrant requirement. Detective Steet's rationale for believing Brown would conceal or destroy evidence based on her denial of consent demonstrated an impermissible inference and constituted an attempt to manufacture exigency. The majority opinion agrees that exigency did not justify the detectives' actions. The discussion also references Illinois v. McArthur, which involved police securing a home while awaiting a warrant but applies standard notions of exigency to justify that action. In McArthur, after a report of drugs in the home, police secured the premises while obtaining a warrant, and the ensuing search found narcotics. The Supreme Court affirmed the reasonableness of temporarily securing a trailer due to exigent circumstances, citing a plausible law enforcement need to prevent the destruction of evidence. The police feared the defendant would destroy drugs upon realizing an imminent search, particularly after learning that his wife had disclosed the marijuana stash. In contrast, the present case involving Brown highlighted that she was not a suspect and there was no basis to believe she would destroy evidence, as her denial of entry created police-initiated exigent circumstances. Unlike in McArthur, where exigent circumstances existed prior to the police's request for consent to search, the current situation lacked that foundation. The McArthur decision emphasized that warrantless entries must be justified by exigent circumstances and that temporary seizure of property is permissible only to prevent loss of evidence while obtaining a warrant. Courts have consistently upheld this principle, requiring exigent circumstances for securing a home pending a warrant application, as seen in previous rulings. The assertion that interpretations of the law have been inconsistent since McArthur is disputed, with courts maintaining that the exigent-circumstances doctrine is the applicable standard. Exigent circumstances may justify warrantless entry into a home, particularly in situations like the hot pursuit of a felon or the imminent destruction of evidence. However, several cases establish limitations on this doctrine. For instance, in *State v. Martin*, the court ruled that a warrantless seizure was unjustified due to insufficient evidence supporting the belief that evidence would be destroyed. Similarly, *State v. Dorson* criticized the detention of individuals in a home while awaiting a warrant as "patently inexcusable," emphasizing that exigent circumstances must exist to validate such entry. In *State v. Bean*, the absence of exigent circumstances led to the conclusion that police could not legally enter a home without a warrant. The police actions in *State v. Speid* were deemed unconstitutional for securing and searching a home without a warrant or exigent circumstances. In the case involving Denise Brown, it was determined that she had a clearly established right to demand a warrant before a search, and the police's failure to secure one, coupled with her confinement for three and a half hours, constituted a violation of her rights under the State Constitution. The dissenting opinion asserts that Detective Steet's actions violated Brown's civil rights, denying him qualified immunity and challenging the majority's decision to reject her claim for recovery.