that no improper warrant-less search of the premises was conducted is further solidified by the fact that law-enforcement personnel did not improperly or prematurely examine or seize any evidence; thus, there is no evidence to be suppressed as a result of this allegedly improper exercise. See Hutchings, supra (stating that “even if we were to find that this brief entry was unjustified, there is no evidence to be suppressed as a result. The district court found that the officers did not perform a search of the contents of the trailer or seize any items at that time”). Moreover, another justification for an immediate, warrantless entrance into Dog-gett’s house was the fear that Doggett was destroying evidence. See generally United States v. Scroger, 98 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) Given Chief Wilson’s and Trooper Clark’s
holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry holding that officers fear of imminent destruction of evidence may justify a warrantless entry holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry holding that the threat of imminent destruction of evidence of criminal activity created an exigent circumstance holding that officers warrantless entry was justified to assure safety of person who called 911