John W. Bloch, III v. United States

sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because trial counsel, he said, was ineffective for not moving to suppress that evidence. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The district court denied his motion because an attempt to suppress would have failed under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement. We affirm. Late at night, two anonymous residents of Elkhart, Indiana, called 911 to report gunfire in an apartment complex. The second caller identified a specific apartment— Unit A—as the source. When officers knocked on the door of Unit A, Bloch responded, verbally combative, swaying back and forth, the smell of alcohol on his breath. The officers ordered Bloch and his girlfriend (who also came to the door) to step outside. Bloch said his young daughter was the only other person in the apartment. Officers then entered to make sure nobody was injured. They did not have a warrant. Inside they spotted a bullet hole in the back door, a pistol on a nightstand, a rifle in an open closet, and ammunition. Bloch, a convicted felon and domestic-violence misdemeanant who could not lawfully possess guns, claimed ownership of them. He was tried and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (g)(9).

In time, Bloch sought relief under § 2255, arguing that counsel should have moved to suppress the guns and ammunition because officers had not obtained a warrant and had relied on anonymous calls. The district court denied relief, ruling that a suppression motion would have failed. Officers were entitled to act on the 911 calls— reports of gunfire demanded haste, and the calls corroborated one another—and a potential shooting victim in the apartment was the kind of exigent circumstance that justifies warrantless entry. The district court certified this issue for appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Bloch has since finished serving his sentence, but he was imprisoned when he filed his § 2255 motion and may continue litigating it to contest any collateral consequences of conviction. See Conley v. United States, 5 F.4th 781, 786 (7th Cir. 2021). To prevail under Strickland, Bloch must "prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious" and that there is a reasonable probability that suppressing the evidence would have resulted in a different outcome. Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986); see also Long v. United States, 847 F.3d 916, 920 (7th Cir. 2017). We focus here on the merits of suppression.

Warrantless searches of the home are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). But under the emergency-aid exception, that presumption is overcome when officers have an

"objectively reasonable basis for believing" that someone inside needs emergency assistance. Id. at 400.

2

Reasonableness, in the emergency-aid context, is distinct from probable cause or reasonable suspicion. See Case v. Montana, 607 U.S. ____, 146 S. Ct. 500, 505 (2026); see also Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee, 751 F.3d 542, 560 (7th Cir. 2014). Those latter terms concern investigation of crime more than ongoing emergencies, although of course the concepts sometimes overlap. Case, 146 S. Ct. at 507; see also Sutterfield,

751 F.3d at 560. Reason to respond to an emergency must be assessed "on its own terms," entailing a common-sense, holistic review of the circumstances. Case, 146 S. Ct. at 507; see also Sutterfield, 751 F.3d at 566. Officers need not be certain or rule out all other explanations. See Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 49 (2009). Nor must they know with certainty the person in danger of injury or point to a potentially fatal injury. See id. All they need is "an objectively reasonable basis for believing" that someone might be injured and need medical aid. Id. (quoting Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 406). When officers lawfully enter a residence to render aid, any obviously incriminating evidence they happen upon in plain view may be seized. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393 (1978); see also Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466 (1971). Bloch generally argues that it was unreasonable to infer that someone might have been injured because no objective evidence confirmed the 911 calls. But that mistakes the "objective" inquiry: as we have explained, the Supreme Court requires an objectively reasonable belief that someone needs emergency aid, not decisive, objective proof of injury. And as we have "repeatedly emphasized," the "inherent danger of gun violence sets shootings apart from other criminal activity." United States v. Rickmon,

952 F.3d 876, 883 (7th Cir. 2020). Multiple callers' reports of "shots fired in the same general area" reflect a "serious" threat to public safety that officers "ha[ve] to assume"

is "continuing in process." United States v. Burgess, 759 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014). Here, officers responded within minutes of the calls; the prospect of a gunshot victim or a shooting in progress was real and emergent. And officers had good reason to believe the shots came from Unit A. One of the two 911 calls specifically identified that apartment as the source of the gunfire. Bloch points out that one officer testified at trial that the 911 dispatcher told him the caller reported shots coming from "outside"

Unit A. But the other officers did not testify similarly. And it would be reasonable for the officers to worry that an injured party had retreated inside, or that the shots had traveled from the outside in. Plus, officers' concern for the safety of those inside Unit A reasonably grew once they saw Bloch. Cf. United States v. Seiwert, 152 F.4th 854, 864 (7th Cir. 2025) (noting long-standing awareness that "intoxicated individuals pose[] a significant risk to the public" when firearms are involved).

3

Bloch's fallback position is that even if the contents of the 911 calls would otherwise justify entering the apartment to render aid, the calls were not reliable because they were anonymous and neither caller described the shooter. To be sure, in Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), the Supreme Court questioned the credibility of anonymous sources' uncorroborated tips about general criminality. Id. at 270. For instance, an anonymous tip about a teen carrying a gun did not justify stopping and searching him, for the tipster "neither explained how he knew about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing he had inside information about J.L." Id. at 271. But Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), later clarified that courts' general distrust of anonymous tips diminishes when the tip comes from a 911 call. Id. at 400-01. Calls to 911 can provide identifying information and be recorded, and false reports can lead to criminal charges against the caller. Id. Although information provided by 911 calls is not beyond question, "a reasonable officer could conclude that a false tipster would think twice before using such a system." Id. at 401.

For criminal investigations, we have distilled the lessons of J.L. and Navarette into several factors that together justify an officer's reliance on anonymous calls. A tip becomes more reliable if the caller (1) asserts personal knowledge of the events,

(2) reports the event contemporaneously, and (3) calls in the tip through 911. United States v. Watson, 900 F.3d 892, 895 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing Navarette, 572 U.S. at 399-402). More to the point, reports of ongoing emergencies—such as shots fired in a residential community, as opposed to a mere report that someone is armed—have a "'special reliability,' requiring a 'lower level of corroboration.'" Id. at 896 (quoting United States v. Hicks, 531 F.3d 555, 559-61 (7th Cir. 2008)). Such situations require haste, and the purpose of the 911 system would be undermined "if the police had to verify the identity of all callers and test their claim to have seen crimes in progress." United States v. Wooden, 551 F.3d 647, 650 (7th Cir. 2008).

Here, the officers could reasonably rely on the calls, which corroborated each other, came in close succession, and used the 911 system. See Rickmon, 952 F.3d at 882 (citing Burgess, 759 F.3d at 710). And although no one described the shooter, one caller pinpointed Unit A as a discrete place to look for injured persons. Under the emergency-aid doctrine, that is enough.

Finally, Bloch asserts that that the 911 call identifying Unit A as the source of the shots must have been made by an officer to manufacture reason to enter the unit—a supposition that he bases on police-badge numbers and other notations that appear on

4

the printed dispatch log. But we see no support for that inference. And each officer testified at trial that the call came from a concerned citizen. Bloch has not carried his burden to show that a motion to suppress would have been meritorious and so has not shown that counsel was ineffective. See Kimmelman,

477 U.S. at 375.

AFFIRMED

5