Police officer Clouse responded to a domestic violence call, and was directed to the location of the victim. Later, he was told to go to an apartment where the suspect would be. Clouse saw Christopher Olson outside the apartment and was unsure that Olson was the person he was supposed to arrest. While another officer dealt with Olson, Clouse went into the apartment that appeared to be connected to Olson. The door was open, and he went inside. Ormonde and two others came out of a back door. Clouse obtained consent, and searched the apartment, finding contraband. Ormonde’s motion to suppress the evidence was denied, he pleaded guilty, and this appeal followed. The appellate court reversed. The motion to suppress should have been granted because there were no exigent circumstances which justified the search. Clouse didn’t believe there were people in the residence, and no reason to think that anyone other than Olson was involved in domestic violence. Further, the domestic violence victim said the conflict had occurred inside a car, and police knew that Olson’s wife was not near the location. Since the entry was unlawful, the evidence should have been suppressed.