on this key issue, in a contemporaneous report, filed the day after the incident, Tr. at 79, Biggs stated that the firearm had been “[recovered in plain view while a cursory search of apartment for homicide suspect [sic].” Tr. at 60 (referring to Defendant’s Exhibit 5). Despite Biggs’s inadequate attempt to repudiate the statement as a “stupid error,” Tr; at 79, the statement significantly undermines the Government’s premise that the primary purpose for the entry was to assist an injured victim of the fight, not to investigate the crime for which the officers were called to the scene. Nor did the officers detect any signs of foul play such as cries for help or other expressions of injury from inside the apartment by a person needing emergency assistance. See Root, 438 F.2d 361, 364 (<HOLDING>) (quoting McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S.
recognizing exigent circumstances for warrantless entry  where the officers passing by the street hear a shot and a cry for help and demand entrance  holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry where it seemed apparent that a burglary was in progress recognizing that among the circumstances accepted as providing exigent circumstances for a warrantless search are those where a true emergency exists holding that officers warrantless entry to locate and abate loud music late at night was justified by exigent circumstances holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry where officers were faced with a call reporting burglary in progress