Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1

    Default Does Hot Pursuit Doctrine Sidestep 4th Amendment

    My question involves police conduct in the State of: California
    A stolen car was located on a city street. (Actually, it wasn't stolen. Seller/Buyer dispute. Seller made false report) It was parked in front of a friends house. After locating car (lo-jack) police set up surveillance. A "suspect" presented them self and began to towel rain off car. This took several minutes. The police observed but did not apprehend "suspect." Instead they allowed "suspect" to enter residence. For unknown reasons they believed "criminal activity" was being conducted inside. To gain entry they stated "suspect" fled into house. The ensuing "hot pursuit" justified their forced entry. This is not true. The "suspect" legally owned car. Why flee? Anyway, once inside they held all occupants at gunpoint and handcuffed. One cop asked about the car and new owner immeadiately came forward with bill-of-sale and resolved issue. However, cops proceeded to tear house apart looking for Meth lab, counterfeiting operation, porn studio, Osama bin Laden , whatever. Never telling the home owner why. They found oz of pot (Med use) and pain killers. Threw the book at him. (poss/sale) He tried to get it tossed on fourth amnd violation. Motion to Suppress was denied. Judge stated that "suspect" indicated "dominion & control" over vehicle. "Hot pursuit" justified entry and the presence of "criminal activity" justified a "Protective sweep." (illegal search)
    To the best of my knowledge "dominion & control" is just that; Inside & behind the wheel. Also, from research, "suspect" must be "jail-able." I don't think toweling rain off "hot" car is a crime. And, if apprehended while toweling, "suspect" could exercise fifth amnd, say nothing, and it would be impossible to convict. Cop in charge stated there was enough probable cause to detain. But he never said enough to arrest.
    Here are my questions: Does toweling rain off "hot" car constitute "dominion & control?" Is toweling off a "hot" car a crime? If "suspect" was "hot pursuitable" enough for forced entry, then why wasn't "suspect" apprehended outside? Was "suspect" worthy of illegal entry? (Hot pursuitable?)
    Please, I want your two-cents worth

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Hot Pursuit Doctrine: Side Step 4th Amnd

    Quote Quoting sjpacello
    View Post
    A stolen car was located on a city street. (Actually, it wasn't stolen. Seller/Buyer dispute. Seller made false report) It was parked in front of a friends house.
    Okay. So, as far as the police were concerned, the vehicle was stolen.

    To gain entry they stated "suspect" fled into house. The ensuing "hot pursuit" justified their forced entry. This is not true.
    Then the defense can present their argument to the court. If the officers identified themselves and attempted to detain or arrest him, and he fled into the home, then the "hot pursuit" doctrine might apply.

    He tried to get it tossed on fourth amnd violation. Motion to Suppress was denied. Judge stated that "suspect" indicated "dominion & control" over vehicle. "Hot pursuit" justified entry and the presence of "criminal activity" justified a "Protective sweep."
    Well, that pretty much answers that question. Apparently it was no exactly a casual stroll inside after wiping off the rain droplets.

    To the best of my knowledge "dominion & control" is just that; Inside & behind the wheel.
    Then you would be wrong. Whether his control will be sufficient to prove to a jury that he stole the car or was in possession of a vehicle that he reasonably should have known was stolen is a question the jury may have to decide.

    Also, from research, "suspect" must be "jail-able." I don't think toweling rain off "hot" car is a crime.
    No, but being in possession of a stolen car is. Plus, at the very least, it was sufficient to justify a detention.

    And, if apprehended while toweling, "suspect" could exercise fifth amnd, say nothing, and it would be impossible to convict.
    Not impossible. Though a confession would be nice, very few cases actually require one in order to be pursued.

    Cop in charge stated there was enough probable cause to detain. But he never said enough to arrest.
    Fleeing from an attempted detention while there is lawful grounds to effect the detention justifies a pursuit.

    - Carl

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Hot Pursuit Doctrine: Side Step 4th Amnd

    Quote Quoting sjpacello
    View Post
    If "suspect" was "hot pursuitable" enough for forced entry, then why wasn't "suspect" apprehended outside? Was "suspect" worthy of illegal entry? (Hot pursuitable?)
    Please, I want your two-cents worth

    It is up to the defendant's attorney to attempt to suppress any contraband found under the Exclusionary Rule as a product of an illegal entry.

    There is a SC case that outlines this in some extent. What state law permits is/may be another matter.

    Held:

    1. Santana, while standing in the doorway of her house, was in a "public place" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, since she was not in an area where she had any expectation of privacy, and was not merely visible to the public, but was exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her house. Thus, when the police, who concededly had probable cause to do so, sought to arrest her, they merely intended to make a warrantless arrest in a public place upon probable cause, and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411 . P. 427 U. S. 42

    2. By retreating into a private place, Santana could not defeat an otherwise proper arrest that had been set in motion in a public place. Since there was a need to act quickly to prevent destruction of evidence, there was a true "hot pursuit," which need not be an extended hue and cry "in and about [the] public streets," and thus a warrantless entry to make the arrest was

    Page 427 U. S. 39

    justified, Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, as was the search incident to that arrest. Pp. 427 U. S. 42-43.

    In other words a person who is under arrest can not simply avoid apprehension by stepping into the home.

    This is different from police who go to a home without an arrest warrant and simply stroll in.

    A warrantless arrest in a HOME must be constitutionally scrutinized, yes.




    http://supreme.justia.com/us/427/38/case.html

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Hot Pursuit Doctrine: Side Step 4th Amnd

    It is to my understanding that the police can execute a protective sweep of the house for their safety, however, they cannot do an invasive search of the house without probable cause. The extent of their search can be no more than a warrant would allow if they had the time to get a warrant. And since the cops were looking for a stolen vehicle, and a search to find a stolen vehicle would not allow the police to search for anything other than a stolen vehicle. A protective search would allow the police to search anywhere in the home that a person might be hiding to evade police (cabinets, closets, attic, etc... would not be a constitutional violation), however, searching in drawers, under coaches, etc... might be a constitutional violation. Police officers are permitted to do a more invasive search of any suspect being arrested within the suspects "reach and lunge area" which has been defined by the supreme court as the immediate room that the suspect is in during the arrest. As far as the entry into the home after witnessing the suspect toweling off the car, I believe that this would make any search of the home illegal as it would have been more than reasonable for the officers to arrest the suspect outside of the home. Police officers must act immediately upon executing an arrest warrant and cannot "wait" for the suspect to enter a dwelling under the pretense that they might find evidence of other crimes committed, and cannot use an arrest warrant to execute a full on search. At the core of this issue is that the officers should have made the arrest outside the home, and once inside the home they had only a limited protection to search, reach and lunge area would allow the officers to search for any weapons in that room the suspect was being arrested, and a protective sweep would only allow the officers to search for hiding persons within the home for their protection. Good luck

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    9,096

    Default Re: Hot Pursuit Doctrine: Side Step 4th Amnd

    I am a little confused.

    Since these issues have already been presented in court and denied as valid, why are they being asked?

    Are you looking for reason to appeal?

    What does your lawyer say?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Hot Pursuit Doctrine: Side Step 4th Amnd

    Quote Quoting jgill09
    View Post
    It is to my understanding that the police can execute a protective sweep of the house for their safety, however, they cannot do an invasive search of the house without probable cause.
    Correct.

    The extent of their search can be no more than a warrant would allow if they had the time to get a warrant.
    No. A protective sweep would be much, much less than what a warrant would authorize. Most warrants will allow officers to look most anywhere that the objects they seek might be located. A protective sweep is not going to generally permit much more than identifying threats to officers (generally meaning people).

    A protective search would allow the police to search anywhere in the home that a person might be hiding to evade police (cabinets, closets, attic, etc... would not be a constitutional violation), however, searching in drawers, under coaches, etc... might be a constitutional violation.
    Under most circumstances this i strue.

    As far as the entry into the home after witnessing the suspect toweling off the car, I believe that this would make any search of the home illegal as it would have been more than reasonable for the officers to arrest the suspect outside of the home.
    There are many reasons why they might not have arrested him outside. If the defense in this case can articulate that no "hot pursuit" existed, then a motion for suppression might succeed. If they can show that the police created this "pursuit" when there was neither the need nor the existance of such pursuit, then bad for the prosecution.

    However, the defense already tried this and the court ruled against the suppression motion. Apparently the court did not believe the police wer bootstrapping the search through some manufactured pursuit claim.

    Police officers must act immediately upon executing an arrest warrant and cannot "wait" for the suspect to enter a dwelling under the pretense that they might find evidence of other crimes committed, and cannot use an arrest warrant to execute a full on search.
    Only partially true.

    An officer does NOT have to act "immediately" to execute an arrest warrant. However, in this instance there was no arrest warrant, so the issue is moot.

    Yes, you are correct that they cannot use an arrest warrant as a search warrant (beyond the scope of any other lawful search - incident to arrest and the lunge area, for example). But, had the person with the arrest warrant been at his residence, they could have made entry anyway ... depending on the nature of the crime on the warrant, the time of day, and any endorsements.

    - Carl

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Hot Pursuit Doctrine: Side Step 4th Amnd

    Quote Quoting cyjeff
    View Post
    I am a little confused.

    Since these issues have already been presented in court and denied as valid, why are they being asked?

    Are you looking for reason to appeal?

    What does your lawyer say?
    Jgill09 is not the original poster.

    - Carl

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: The Pursuit of Shoplifters
    By cutlikeasurgeon in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-15-2011, 08:15 AM
  2. Assault & Battery: Pursuit 5 Warrant
    By needadvisenow! in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 07:21 AM
  3. Search and Seizure: Special Needs Doctrine
    By nativeray in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-13-2007, 12:36 PM
  4. Pursuit Across State Lines
    By Vas Deferens in forum Police Investigations
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 02:40 AM
  5. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Pursuit of Fleeing Shoplifter
    By worried321 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-25-2005, 08:34 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources