United States v. Giambro, 2025 WL 100531 (1st Cir. 2025)
Antonio Giambro returned from vacation and went to his parents’ trailer in Hebron, Maine, to check on his parents — both of whom were in their 70s. Dario, Antonio’s father, told him his mother had died during the two weeks Antonio was away. Antonio did not see his mother inside his parents’ trailer. Worried about his father’s mental health, Antonio drove Dario to a hospital in a nearby town. Antonio did not call 911 or do anything that suggested concern his mother was still alive and needed help.
Hospital staff called the police and reported that Antonio “just brought in his father to the hospital because is confused but he said that his mother is at the house deceased and … they don’t know what happened to the mother.” Corporal Robert Federico arrived at the hospital and spoke with Antonio. Antonio told Federico he could not make contact with either of his parents after knocking on the front door of their trailer the previous evening and calling throughout the evening. Dario finally answered the phone that morning. When Antonio asked what specifically had happened to his mother, Dario answered evasively, saying things like, “she didn’t wake up” and “these sorts of things happen.” Dario sounded “off” to Antonio, prompting him to visit the trailer and take his father to the hospital.
After speaking with Antonio for about five minutes, Corporal Federico informed dispatch the Giambro residence was in Hebron (a neighboring jurisdiction) and “the father is telling the son that the mother died but she’s not in the house and he won’t say where she is.” Federico suggested an Oxford County Sheriff’s deputy come to the hospital to speak to Dario or Antonio. He also told dispatch about a prior history record with two “miscellaneous comments” dating back more than 10 years that Dario “shot a subject, created a police standoff, is VERY anti-law enforcement and in the past has possessed more than 100 firearms,” and that “ubject is on ederal robation” and the probation officer “thinks subject could be a problem with … and is armed.”
Federico then spoke with a deputy by phone and told him “everything had learned up to that point as far as what Antonio had told him” and concerns that the mother could still be alive. The deputy drove directly to the Giambro residence. Three other officers arrived shortly after. Two officers walked around the back of the trailer to look for any tracks in the snow and saw none. They tried to look through the windows, but blinds and plastic obscured their view. One officer knocked on the trailer door, yelled “Sheriff’s Office,” and told anyone inside to answer the door.
At this point, the only information the officers had received about the mother was that she had died. The officers also knew Antonio had been at the house that morning, that he had called 911, and that he decided to take his father to the hospital. The officers confirmed with dispatch that no one had made a 911 call related to the mother. The officers did not call Antonio or Dario at the hospital. Instead, they forced the trailer door open to search for the mother. The officers saw a number of guns in the trailer, but did not locate the mother or anyone else. A short time later, an officer found her body wrapped in plastic, lying under a loose door on top of the snow. A later autopsy determined Dario’s wife had died from “natural causes.”
The officers obtained a search warrant for the trailer based on the guns they had seen during the earlier search. Dario was charged with being a felon in possession of firearms. He asked the trial court to suppress the evidence, claiming the warrantless search of his trailer was unlawful. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, reasoning that the officers properly relied on the emergency aid exception in entering the trailer without a warrant so they could confirm whether the mother was dead or alive.
The appellate court disagreed with the district court’s application of the emergency aid doctrine, holding the officers did not have an objectively reasonable basis to believe the mother was alive and in need of immediate aid because Antonio had been in the trailer that morning and had reported she was not there. The appellate court noted the officers should have spoken to Antonio and Dario (who were waiting at the hospital) before forcibly entering the residence. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and vacated Dario’s conviction.
The emergency aid doctrine allows officers to enter a home without a warrant when “the officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe there is an immediate need to protect the lives or safety of themselves or others, and the manner and scope of the search is reasonable” (Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006)). Corporal Federico had asked for a deputy to speak with Antonio or Dario at the hospital. The court stressed that the lack of urgency to enter Dario’s residence without a warrant would have been apparent if the officers had taken the time to question either man at the hospital and learn the mother was not in the trailer. One can only speculate that either Dario or Antonio would have given consent to enter — or may have at least provided enough information to obtain a search warrant. Though hindsight is always 20/20, this case reminds officers to pause and consider whether there is a true exigency before making a warrantless entry.