Los Angeles, CA – The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) is facing renewed scrutiny over its policies regarding home entry, particularly in cases where deceased individuals are suspected, following a recent claim made by "EIE" on social media. The tweet, dated July 28, 2025, asserted, "> Right now LAPD has policies that are preventing cops from entering homes to find dead bodies." This statement highlights ongoing concerns about police response protocols in critical situations.
The claim resonates with recent incidents reported by the Los Angeles Times, where LAPD officers initially responded to 911 calls but failed to discover deceased individuals, only for the bodies to be found later. In one notable case from May 2025, officers responded to calls regarding Menashe Hidra and Modebadze, finding nothing initially, but later discovered both had died. These incidents have fueled public debate and prompted internal investigations within the department.
A key aspect of police procedure involves "exigent circumstances," which typically allow warrantless entry into a home to prevent harm, destruction of evidence, or a suspect's escape. However, legal interpretations suggest that the mere presence or smell of a deceased body may not always constitute an immediate exigent circumstance if there is no ongoing threat to life. As one legal expert noted, "A situation that would not constitute an exigent circumstance would be the smell of a dead body... it is not enough to allow law enforcement to enter on exigent circumstances because it does not indicate immediate harm, rather that an individual is already deceased."
Despite this legal nuance, some experts argue that common sense should prevail in such situations. Ed Obayashi, a Modoc County sheriff’s deputy and special prosecutor, stated that "Even a lay person has the common sense to see exigent circumstances exist to enter these homes," particularly when initial calls suggest potential foul play or distress. The tension between strict adherence to Fourth Amendment protections and the imperative of public safety continues to be a central point of discussion.
The LAPD has initiated investigations into the responses in the aforementioned cases, acknowledging the need for further examination of officer actions. This ongoing review seeks to balance constitutional rights with the public's expectation of prompt and effective police intervention in emergencies, especially when lives may be at stake or already lost. The outcome of these reviews could lead to clarifications or adjustments in departmental policies to address these critical scenarios more effectively.