Ballard (Fredrica) v. State

 that her sons had gotten into an altercation but had left the scene.
Suddenly, one of Ballard's sons, William, emerged from the home
scratched and bleeding William 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
Ballard refused, explaining that her two minor children were sleeping
upstairs. The officers convinced Ballard to try and get Daniel to come
down. Ballard called for her son, 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 Ballard's 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 and denied
Ballard's motion to suppress. 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 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 Ballard 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). In addition, although Ballard 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
SUPREME COURT
OP
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ce>
347 (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district
court did not err by denying Ballard's motion, and we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.'
J.
Parraguirre
cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge
Gary A. Modafferi
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
"Ballard's fast track statement does not comply with the Nevada
Rules of Appellate Procedure because it does not contain one-inch margins
on all sides. See NRAP 3C(h)(1) (requiring fast track filings to comply
with the formatting requirements of NRAP 32(a)(4)-(6)); NRAP 32(a)(4).
We caution counsel that future failure to comply with the applicable rules
when filing briefs in this court may result in the imposition of sanctions.
See NRAP 3C(n).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A