Utica was to aid potentially injured victims. Tr. at 61 (Rinaldo), 119 (Schulz), 15 (Biggs). Therefore, the correct analysis as to the legality of the warrantless entry into Defendant’s apartment should be based on caselaw applicable to whether exigent circumstances to aid an injured victim were present. A. The Officers’ Warrantless Entry The Fourth Amendment, as relevant, protects the right of the people to be secure in their houses and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 10, 115 S.Ct. 1185, 131 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995). Generally, a warrant is required before a search and seizure may be conducted, unless an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement exists. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987) (<HOLDING>). One well-established exception to the warrant
recognizing the searchincidenttoarrest exception to the warrant requirement holding that accident investigation by itself is not exigent circumstance recognizing exigent circumstance exception to warrant requirement recognizing hot pursuit exception as one example of exigent circumstances exception recognizing exception