You see a man suspected of being involved in a robbery run into an apartment building. A few minutes later you hear screams and fighting coming from an apartment. A woman answers the door. The woman, a tenant, is bleeding and she admits that she has just been in a fight. A man, also a tenant, appears at the door. You ask the man and woman for consent to search. The woman agrees but the man objects. You then lawfully arrest the man for the assault the man for the assault on the woman and transport him off-scene. Two hours later, while the man is still being processed, another LEO goes to the apartment and asks the woman to consent to a search which she gives. Inside of the apartment the LEO discovers evidence of the robbery. The evidence is:

• A. Admissible since there were exigent circumstances.
• B. Admissible only with the initial consent.
• C. Admissible due to the consent obtained two hours later.
• D. Inadmissible for lack of any consent.

Answer: (A)

Exigent circumstances allow a warrantless entry and search when there is an immediate need to protect life or prevent destruction of evidence. Here, there was an active disturbance inside the apartment: screams, fighting, a bleeding victim, and a suspect who had just been involved in an assault. Officers faced a real risk to safety and the potential destruction or loss of evidence if they waited for a warrant. That urgency makes the initial entry and search justified even if one tenant objected, because the danger and potential for evidence loss overrides a roommate’s lack of consent. The fact that the other tenant later provided consent might support additional searching, but the admissibility of the evidence discovered during the initial response is grounded in exigent circumstances.