Emergency Aid or Overreach? Court Affirms Warrantless Entry and Deadly Force

by | January 29, 2025

Dimock v. City of Brooklyn Center, 2024 WL 5220190 (8th Cir. 2024)

Erwin Heisler called 911 and reported his grandson had threatened him with a knife and hammer. The grandfather got frustrated with the dispatcher’s questions, said “Oh, forget it,”  and hung up. The dispatcher told officers that a 21-year-old man was fighting with his grandfather and that he had a hammer and a knife, explaining what happened during the call. Four officers arrived at Heisler’s house and approached the front door. One of them commented that the grandson, Kobe Dimock-Heisler, had stabbed himself earlier that year.

When Heisler answered the door, an officer asked, “What’s going on tonight?” Heisler, apparently referring to his grandson Dimock-Heisler, replied, “He’s going to be okay.” The grandfather told officers his wife and grandson were in the house with him. An officer saw Dimock-Heisler through a window, and another told Heisler the officers needed to “make sure that everybody’s okay before we leave.” The grandfather said “ok,” turned and walked back into his house. He told the officers Dimock-Heisler did not have any weapons, saying to his wife, “They just want to make sure everything is okay.”

Two officers began speaking with Dimock-Heisler in the front room. The young man’s grandmother gave an officer a bag containing the knife and hammer. Outside, Heisler told another officer his grandson was afraid of being hospitalized.

The two officers talking with the grandfather heard commotion from inside the house. They ran in and found two other officers trying to restrain Dimock-Heisler on a couch. The couch tipped over. Two officers fired their TASER devices at Dimock, but he was not immobilized. Dimock-Heisler grabbed another knife (not the one his grandmother had given the officers) and tried to run back further into the house. One officer grabbed his legs, and Dimock-Heisler fell to the floor.

An officer shouted, “Knife, Knife, Knife!” It is unclear whether Dimock-Heisler was stabbing or slashing at the officer who tripped him. The officer began to stand up, and Dimock-Heisler scrambled to his feet and stood with the knife in his right hand. At this point he was directly in front of his grandmother, who was seated behind him. To leave the room, the young man would have had to run right by at least one of the four officers. Two officers fired three shots each, killing Dimock-Heisler.

Dimock-Heisler’s mother sued, claiming the officers’ warrantless entry into the house was an unreasonable search and alleging excessive force. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers on the basis of qualified immunity. The plaintiff appealed the decision, challenging the grant of qualified immunity.

On appeal, the 8th Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of qualified immunity. The appellate court held the officers’ belief in the existence of exigent circumstances was reasonable given the information they had, including Dimock-Heisler’s threats and mental health history. The court noted “domestic disturbances are highly volatile and involve large risks.” However, the fact that a call is for a domestic disturbance does not automatically mean there are exigent circumstances.

The exigent circumstances doctrine excuses warrantless compliance with the Fourth Amendment warrant clause in four general circumstances:

  1. When an officer is in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon.
  2. When necessary to prevent imminent destruction of evidence.
  3. To prevent a suspect’s escape.
  4. In response to the risk of danger to the police or others. This is often referred to as the “emergency aid doctrine.” See Brigham City v. Stuart (547 U.S. 398 (2006)).

These factors are all considered in light of the “risk of danger, the gravity of the crime and the likelihood that the suspect is armed” (Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990)).

The appellate court also held the use of deadly force was justified because the officers had probable cause to believe Dimock-Heisler posed an immediate threat to his grandmother and the officers, even if he was only holding the knife and not actively attacking anyone at the moment of the shooting. The grandfather said “Oh, forget it” on his 911 call and told the officers Dimock-Heisler would “be okay.” He also asserted Dimock-Heisler did not have any weapons on him, prompting the plaintiff to claim officers could not have reasonably believed Dimock-Heisler was armed and dangerous. The court disagreed, stating “officers can reasonably disbelieve individuals. Due to the nature of domestic disputes, an officer need not take a putative victim’s statement at face value when assessing whether a suspect presents an ongoing threat to the victim.”

KEN WALLENTINE is police chief of the West Jordan (Utah) Police Department and former chief of law enforcement for the Utah attorney general. He has served over three decades in public safety, is a legal expert and editor of Xiphos, a monthly national criminal procedure newsletter. Wallentine is a member of the board of directors of the Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Death and serves as a use of force consultant in state and federal criminal and civil litigation across the nation.

More Posts

Get Xiphos Delivered to Your Inbox