Was the warrantless and non-consensual entry of the police into Hopkins' apartment constitutionally justified by exigent circumstances?

Question

A witness at the scene of an overturned car told police that the driver was a woman, that her breath smelled of alcohol, and that she was driven away by a man in another vehicle. An open bottle of beer, containing a small amount of alcohol, was found outside the overturned vehicle and five empty bottles of beer were inside the vehicle. More than two hours later, after 11:00 p.m., police came to the apartment of Tanya Hopkins, a cousin of Sheila Lovig, the driver. Lovig stayed there overnight an average of three nights a week. The police heard two women talking inside. Hopkins at first refused to let the police enter and said Lovig was not there. After a lengthy series of talks at the apartment door, police were allowed to enter after threatening to charge Hopkins with interfering with and investigation. Lovig was in a locked bedroom and refused to exit until police threatened to force the door down. Lovig was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), second offense, an aggravated misdemeanor punishable by at least seven days of incarceration and a fine of at least $ 1500.
What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

No
The police had probable cause to believe that Lovig operated a vehicle while intoxicated and that she was in the apartment. Lovig had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment. Unlike the civil offense in Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984), first offense OWI is classified as a serious misdemeanor in Iowa; additional OWI convictions can rise to a felony level. A serious misdemeanor OWI offense carries a maximum one year jail sentence and a minimum sentence of two days, as well as a substantial fine. Based on this legislative judgment, and the other serious consequences that can be associated with the offense, OWI is a relatively serious crime that can support a warrantless home entry if probable cause and exigent circumstances exist. The collection of alcohol evidence can be altered or destroyed by a delay in making an arrest. A suspect could ingest more alcohol, skewing the alcohol content higher and corrupting any evidence of prior consumption. Second, the blood alcohol level naturally dissipates during a delay. The State claims that, considering the seriousness of the offense, the destruction of evidence resulting from a delay in obtaining a warrant justified the warrantless entry into the apartment. In this case, however, there was no hot pursuit. In the absence of hot pursuit, the claim of destruction of evidence must be carefully examined. A defendant is permitted to refuse a chemical test, making the claim of evidence destruction illusory. Lovig had been in the apartment for a period of time before police arrived, providing her with several means of destruction of evidence that would still exist even if a warrantless entry was made once police arrived. There was no indication that the police sought a warrant or tried to determine the amount of time it would take to secure a warrant. The circumstances do not support the warrantless entry.