entered the home, making the discussion of safety concerns in warrantless entry cases in-apposite. See Valdez, 302 F.3d at 322 ("No exigent circumstance existed outside Defendant’s home.”). 7 . See also Price v. State, 93 S.W.3d 358, 364 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) ("The mere assumption that those in possession of controlled substances are normally also in possession of firearms is insufficient as a matter of law to eliminate the notice requirement.”) 8 . See, e.g., Price, 93 S.W.3d at 368 ("In light of Richards and Wilson, we decline to permit officers to invoke the destruction of evidence exception whenever the objects named in the search warrant are by their nature amenable to ready disposal or destruction.”); Brown v. State, 115 S.W.3d 633, 639 (Tex.App.— 10th Dist.] 2003) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the Texas courts arguably interpret
holding that there is no basis in law to submit the issue of plaintiffs negligence to the jury when there was no evidence that plaintiff incited the dog or voluntarily or unreasonably exposed herself to a known risk holding that city ordinances ban on assault weapons was vague because the ordinance lacked a scienter requirement and its definitions of assault weapons inter alia unfairly required gun consumers to ascertain the developmental history of particular weapons or monitor the precise types of ammunition available for their weapons holding enhancement not appropriate because of two and onehalf month lapse between the criminal activity and the discovery of the weapons and no evidence that weapons were present when defendant committed charged offense holding search of armed robbery defendants suitcases and between mattresses of hotel room proper where at time of arrest officers were aware that the defendants had used several different weapons during the robberies and that one weapon a loaded revolver was in plain view concluding officers reasonably feared that someone else was going to come to the room who knew where the other weapons were or that the defendants would position themselves to take advantage of any hidden weapons or instrumentalities holding noknock search unconstitutional where there was no testimony or evidence that either of the suspects were violent or were known to keep weapons in their home