Warrant Exception for Exigent Circumstances

Question 1

What are the three main exigent circumstances? (and underlying purposes)

Answer 1

Officers need probable cause re criminal activity or evidence, however they do not need a warrant to search when it comes to exigent circumstances.

1. Hot pursuit
2. Safety of the public or of the office
3. Risk of destruction of evidence

Purposes:
1. Prevent flight
2. Preserve evidence/prevent destruction of evidence
3. Preserve public safety.

Note: establishing an exigent circumstance requires a case-by-case analysis of whether this purposes apply.

Question 2

Hot Pursuit

Answer 2

An assessment of whether hot pursuit is justified requires a case by case analysis (no bright line rules).

Officers can follow a suspect into a constitutionally protected area where they otherwise would not be allowed if they are in hot pursuit.

The length of time of the pursuit does not matter. U.S. v. Santana

Hot pursuit does not apply, however, if the suspect does not know they are being followed/chased. Welsh v. Wisconsin.

Question 3

Warden v. Hayden (SCOTUS 1967)

Answer 3

This case affirmed hot pursuit as an exigent circumstance. An officer had the right to follow a suspect into his home without a warrant when the officer had probable cause that the suspect had committed a burglary and was chasing him in hot pursuit

Question 4

Brigham City v. Stuart (SCOTUS 2006)

Answer 4

This case held that the officer’s subjective intent does not matter when assessing whether a warrantless search/entry into someone’s home was justified by the need to protect public safety. The officer can use this as a pretext if they want to get into the home and make an arrest.

Facts: the police reported to a scene based on a noise complaint. When they arrived they saw an altercation in the house through the window. The police then entered the home and told the fighting men to stop.

Question 5

Protection of Public Safety

Answer 5

An assessment of whether protection of public safety justified a warrantless intrusion depends on the circumstances (prevent destruction of evidence, preserve public safety, prevent flight).

The danger has to be urgent.
All that matters is that the police percieve danger, it does not matter if there factually is urgent danger.

Question 6

Destruction of Evidence

Answer 6

An assessment of whether there is risk of destruction of evidence depends on the circumstances. Courts typically use the Doorman Factors to decide whether there was a risk of DoE.

1. suspected offense (more violent, more likely to destroy e)
2. whether suspect is armed (more justified)
3. probable cause that the suspect committed the offense
4. reason to believe the suspect is on the premises
5. liklihood of escape
6. peaceful circumstances of the entry

Question 7

Doorman Factors

Answer 7

These are the six factors the courts use to determine whether the police reasonably believed there was risk of destruction of evidence:
1. gravity of the suspected offense
2. whether the suspect is armed
3. whether there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed the offense
4. whether there is reason to believe the suspect is in the home
5. the liklihood of flight/escape
6. peaceable entry.

Question 8

Kentucky v. King (SCOTUS 2011)

Answer 8

This case held that the police cannot create exigent circumstances by threatening action that would violate a person’s 4th amendment rights to justify a warrantless search/entry.

In this case, the police saw a suspect go into an apartment. They went up to the door (accidentally of a different apartment), smelled weed, and knocked, saying that they were going to come in. This was even though they did not have the right to do so. After this announcement, the police heard shuffling inside, and so they suspected that evidence was being destroyed. They claimed that this exigent circumstance justified their warrantless entry into the apartment.