Ballard, IV (William) v. State

 must be raised at trial and proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
See NRS 453A.310(1)-(4). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion to dismiss.
Second, appellant contends that the district court erred by
denying his motion to suppress the marijuana underlying his convictions
on the ground that it was discovered after an unconstitutional search.
When reviewing a district court's resolution of a motion to suppress, we
review its factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.
State v. Lisenbee, 116 Nev. 1124, 1127, 13 P.3d 947, 949 (2000).
At the evidentiary hearing regarding appellant's motion, law
enforcement officers testified that they received a call regarding a
domestic violence incident at appellant's family home. When they arrived,
appellant's mother, Fredrica, approached them and stated that her sons
had gotten into an altercation but had left the scene. Suddenly, appellant
emerged from the home scratched and bleeding. Appellant explained that
he had gotten into a fight with his brother, Daniel, who was hiding
upstairs. The officers expressed concern regarding Daniel's condition and
asked to check on him but Fredrica refused, explaining that her two minor
children were sleeping upstairs. The officers convinced Fredrica to try and
get Daniel to come down. Fredrica called for Daniel but he did not
respond. The officers determined that entry of the home was necessary to
evaluate Daniel's condition, as well as that of the minor children, and
proceeded inside without a warrant.
The district court concluded that the entry of the home fell
into the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. We agree. See
Hannon v. State, 125 Nev. 142, 147, 207 P.3d 344, 347 (2009) (the
emergency exception to the warrant requirement is applicable where an
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
officer "had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that there was an
immediate need to protect the lives or safety of themselves or others").
Although appellant contends that there was no concrete evidence to prove
that Daniel was injured, an officer need only have "an objectively
reasonable basis" to believe a person may be in need of assistance. Id.;
Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 406 (2006). And although
appellant contends that the officers were motivated by a desire to arrest
Daniel, "a law enforcement officer's subjective motivation is irrelevant."
Hannon, 125 Nev. at 147, 207 P.3d at 347 (internal quotation marks
omitted). We conclude that the district court did not err by denying
appellant's motion to suppress on this basis.
Third, appellant contends that the district court erred by
denying his motion to suppress the marijuana underlying his convictions
on the ground that it was not in his actual or constructive possession. We
disagree because this ground was not a valid basis upon which to suppress
evidence. A motion to suppress is "a request for the exclusion of evidence
premised upon an allegation that the evidence was illegally obtained."
State v. Shade, 110 Nev. 57, 63, 867 P.2d 393, 396 (1994). The stated
ground did not challenge the legality of the search; rather, it alleged that
there was no connection between the evidence and appellant. We conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant
appellant's motion to suppress on this basis.
Fourth, appellant contends that his convictions were
contradictory and were not supported by sufficient evidence. We decline to
consider these arguments because they lack cogent argument and legal
authority. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0)1947A e
Having considered appellant's contentions and concluded that
no relief is warranted, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
mr a ,J
Parraguirre
to
ThtfDLO5 fize6 J. On J.
Douglas Cherry
cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge
The Law Office of Dan M. Winder, P.C.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A e