fired. See, e.g., People v Wharton, 53 Cal 3d 522; 280 Cal Rptr 631; 809 P2d 290 (1991) (upholding entry of a residence to locate a missing individual); Carroll v State, 335 Md 723, 731-732; 646 A2d 376 (1994) (citing federal and state cases upholding warrantless entries when the police reasonably believed that a burglary was in progress or had recently been committed); Davis, 442 Mich at 28 (assuming without deciding that, in most cases, the sound of gunfire could justify warrantless entry into a motel room under the emergency-aid doctrine). By contrast, the authority supporting a warrantless entry under facts similar to those presented here is both scarce and dubious. A few cases have allowed warrantless entries in cases involving water leaks. See State v Dube, 655 A2d 338 (Me, 1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v Boyd, 407 F Supp 693, 694
holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry holding that in every warrantless entry into private residence state has burden to demonstrate that exigencies of situation made entry imperative holding lawful a warrantless entry to combat a plumbing emergency and stop sewage or water from leaking into apartments below recognizing emergency exception holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry