In Kyer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 473, 479, 612 S.E.2d 213, 216-17 (2005) ( en banc), we applied a familiar standard of appellate review for addressing the emergency and community caretaker exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Under this standard, we give "deference to the factual findings of the trial court" and "independently determine" whether those facts satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

It . . . condemns only 'unreasonable' searches and seizures." Kyer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 473, 480, 612 S.E.2d 213, 217 (2005) (en banc). Pursuant to the emergency doctrine, as set out in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978), and recently reaffirmed inBrigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 1943, 164 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2006):

The trial court initially denied Whitehurst's motion to suppress the evidence. However, on reconsideration in light of our decision inKyer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 473, 612 S.E.2d 213 (2005) (en banc), it subsequently granted the motion to suppress. II. ANALYSIS

It . . . condemns only 'unreasonable' searches and seizures." Kyer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 473, 480, 612 S.E.2d 213, 217 (2005) (en banc). Pursuant to the emergency doctrine, as set out in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978), and recently reaffirmed inBrigham City v. Stuart, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 1943, 164 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2006):

Therefore, we give "'deference to the factual findings of the trial court' and 'independently determine' whether those findings satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment." Kyer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 473, 480, 612 S.E.2d 213, 217 (2005) (quoting Whitfield v. Commonwealth, 265 Va. 358, 361, 576 S.E.2d 463, 464 (2003)). To prevail on appeal Goode bears the burden to "show that the trial court's denial of his suppression motion, when the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was reversible error."Whitfield, 265 Va. at 361, 576 S.E.2d at 464.

“Among the many interests served by the Fourth Amendment, the privacy interest in one's home has few equals.” Kyer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va.App. 473, 480–81, 612 S.E.2d 213, 217 (2005) ( en banc ); see also Washington v. Commonwealth, 60 Va.App. 427, 436–37, 728 S.E.2d 521, 526 (2012). “At the very core of the Fourth Amendment stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”

Again, the undisputed facts before the Court do not establish any objectively reasonable basis for the perception of an emergency in the Mial home when Deputies Sherin and Ferguson made their entry. In the Virginia Court of Appeals decision in Kyer v. Commonwealth, 612 S.E.2d 213 (Va. App. 2005), the issue was whether police officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they walked into the criminal defendant's apartment through a door that had been left open after knocking and receiving no answer. 612 S.E.2d at 215. The officers had caught one of two suspects that fled the scene of a burglar alarm, and the detained suspect directed the officers to the defendant's apartment.

Thus, "law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury." Id. See also Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 49, 130 S.Ct. 546, 549, 175 L.Ed.2d 410 (2009) (per curiam) (same); Kyer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 473, 480, 612 S.E.2d 213 (2005) (en banc) (stating that the emergency-aid exception "recognizes the ‘right of the police to enter and investigate’ when someone’s health or physical safety is genuinely threatened" (quoting Reynolds v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 430, 437, 388 S.E.2d 659 (1990))).The doctrine also has common-law antecedents See Edward Coke, Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, Concerning the Jurisdiction of Courts 177 (6th ed 1681) (noting that a justice of the peace could make a warrantless entry into a house "upon Hue and Cry of one that is slam or wounded, as he is in danger of death")

However, this "'presumption may be overcome in some circumstances' because the 'warrant requirement is subject to certain reasonable exceptions.'" Ross v. Commonwealth, 61 Va.App. 752, 759 (2013) (quoting Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459 (2011)); see also Kyer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va.App. 473, 480 (2005) (en banc) (recognizing that the Fourth Amendment "condemns only 'unreasonable' searches and seizures"). "One concession to reasonableness" is the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement, which "recognizes the 'right of the police to enter and investigate' when someone's health or physical safety is genuinely threatened." Kyer, 45 Va.App. at 480.

Thus, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Kyer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va.App. 473, 480 (2005) (enbanc). "Among the many interests served by the Fourth Amendment, the privacy interest in one's home has few equals."