doing violated the right against unreasonable searches. In view of the facts, acknowledged by the majority — that the troopers knew there was a back porch that Smith sometimes sat on, that there lights on in the house, that the garage door was open, that there were vehicles in the driveway, and that they wanted to locate Smith, who they believed to be in the house, in order to have him turn off the lights shining on Shafers’ property — I conclude that the second trip around the house, while the telephone contact was being attempted, was not an unreasonable search. Smith had created a public nuisance that was affecting his neighbor, and the steps taken by Marasco and Scianna were reasonable efforts to abate it. See, e.g., United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1518-25 (6th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). We should not permit the tragic consequences,
holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry where it seemed apparent that a burglary was in progress holding that officers warrantless entry to locate and abate loud music late at night was justified by exigent circumstances holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry where officers were faced with a call reporting burglary in progress holding that officers warrantless entry was justified to assure safety of person who called 911