After chasing a wanted suspect to the door of defendant’s apartment, and arresting him as he tried to escape via a back window, officers entered defendant’s apartment without a warrant and without consent for the stated purposes of checking the welfare of anyone inside (i.e., the “emergency aid exception”) and/or as a “protective sweep” for other suspects.  While inside, the officers contacted defendant (who appeared to have been sleeping), held him at gunpoint, handcuffed him, and took him outside.   Once outside, it was discovered that defendant was subject to a probationary Fourth waiver, and subject to warrantless searches.  Officers then reentered his apartment and conducted a full Fourth waiver search, finding methamphetamine “and other incriminating evidence.”  In a previous appeal and an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit rejected both excuses for entering defendant’s apartment, holding that the officers violated of the Fourth Amendment.  (See United States v. Garcia (9th Cir. 2018) 749 F. App’x 516.)  Upon returning the case to the trial court for a determination of whether the “attenuation doctrine” applied—i.e., whether the discovery of the suspicionless search condition was an intervening circumstance that broke the causal chain between the initial unlawful entry and the discovery of the evidence supporting defendant’s conviction—the trial court held that the attenuation doctrine does apply.  Defendant appealed.