the majority’s reasoning that it would not be “objectively reasonable” for police to investigate such suspicious circumstances. Thus, although I agree that the trial court did not err in denying Kyer’s motion to suppress, I disagree with the analysis of the majority and, consequently, concur only in the result. 6 . Although the "emergency doctrine” is often equated to the "exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement, the two differ slightly. When officers conduct an emergency entry for purposes of investigating a crime, the emergency is considered an "exigency” for purposes of the exigent circumstances exception, and the officers must have probable cause before they can enter the residence. See Commonwealth v. Thornton, 24 Va.App. 478, 484, 483 S.E.2d 487, 490 (1997) (<HOLDING>). If, however, the officers effectuate an
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 recognizing that  exigent circumstances do not excuse the failure to secure a warrant when those circumstances are created by government officials who unreasonably and deliberately delay or avoid obtaining the warrant holding warrantless search of motel room after occupant was arrested outside room for drug possession could not be justified as search incident to arrest absent other exigent circumstances holding that camey notwithstanding the fact that a car is moveable alone is not sufficiently exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search