Exigency can apply for the first one or two times a fake call can be applied. But after dozens one has to question just how far the police can push it. Exigent circumstances are a defense to accusations of civil rights violations. They are not a universal panacea for all actions by the police. If they were then the police can't be held to account for anything.
I didn't say that they were a panacea. Again, you have to look at the entire picture instead of disparate parts.
- Patty has a criminal history of being violent towards loved ones
- It has been demonstrated, with video evidence, that Patty has been combative to responding law enforcement
- There have been multiple instances where LE attended the Quarter Hovel with zero issue or potential civil rights violations
This is without accounting for specific LEOs being dicks (and potentially running afoul of a civil rights violation) or the fact that Patty might've self-swatted his porcine ass. Lots of variables to consider and probably why a judge (who isn't as intimately familiar with Patty's circumstances as we are) is letting this case proceed.
Like it or not, police are obligated to clear a call and determine that it is false. Just assuming everything is hunky dory opens them up to massive liability in the 1% chance Sir Oinksalot decided he was actually going to kill Niki and any unborn children she has.
How they respond to such a call, even if there have been false alarms before is probably entirely dependent on how much squealing there is from Patty.
Do you think that police would be inclined to brush off an indignant Patty, storming out in his bathrobe in full-on tantrum mode? Or would they be more likely to believe a domestic quarrel was happening?
