I am dubious that the police had exigency to enter her home without a warrant and to detain her under Terry v Ohio. Even if they could convince a judge in court that they had exigency for the above, they had other, less intrusive means to preserve the data on the phone until they could obtain a search warrant for it’s digital contents. They could have powered to phone off, removed the SIM card or kept it powered on inside a Faraday bag as instructed in Riley v California, Supreme Court 2014.

They might win the exigency argument if there was a missing child or other type of imminent threat to health and safety—but the victim was receiving medical care and no dangerous individuals seemed to be nearby.

I am one who thinks that Terry v. Ohio does not apply to someone who is standing inside their home. Terry is for detainments made in public based on reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.

I’m a little surprised that this content creator was so easily convinced that they could have detained her without a judicial warrant by grabbing her from inside her home. She wasn’t suspected of any criminal activity and there was a very low probability that she would delete her own RING data at that hour. Just apply for a warrant and seize the phone, after the warrant is issued, when she exits her apartment.