does not alone create exigent circumstances ... additional facts that would significantly increase the likelihood of violence” are required). 18 . Cf. Najar, 451 F.3d at 719-20 (concluding that officers' “response to a 911 call where the occupant repeatedly refused to answer the telephone or the door” supported reasonable belief that warrantless entry was immediately necessary to provide aid). 19 . Cf. Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 406-07, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) (finding exigent circumstances to enter home where officers observed ongoing fight that reasonably supported belief -that entry was necessary “to render. emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury”). 20 . Cf. Gordon, 741 F.3d at 70 (10th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). 21 . Cf. United States v. Rhiger, 315 F.3d
holding that debtor who was separated from her husband and who testified that she would only return to the marital home if her husband vacated the house or died or if she was required to care for him or her adult son there or if the couple reconciled was an abandonment of the marital home as her homestead recognizing exigency to permit warrantless home entry where officer entered home to protect victim of domestic battery who contacted police saying that she was afraid that her boyfriend would seriously harm her holding that an officer may not continue her search once she has determined that no exigency exists holding wife did not have a duty to warn a police officer who was shot while escorting her home that her husband had threatened to kill any police officer holding that hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect justified a warrantless entry into the suspects home to protect inhabitants as long as the police did not know the home belonged to the suspect