People vs Raymey-hot pursuit into a res

[tapout]

Hot pursuit of misdemeanor offender into residence...found in a brief called law enforcement legal update, updated 1/16/06

if an officer has probable cause to believe that a person has committed DUI or another serious crime with alcohol influence as element of crime, and the person tries to flee into a home, the officer has the authority to forcibly enter the home and make an arrest...State vs Griffith...noting the special exigency of likely lost evidence ie dissipation of alcohol-if the officer has to wait to get a search warrant...i didnt know this until stan posted the california case law and i got a chance to dig a little deeper.

however, where there is no articuable exigency, then it is much more difficult to argue that forcible, warrantless entry is permitted to force entry to carry out the probable cause arrest of one who committed any other misdemeanor.


see also state v bessette which holds that an officer in hot pursuit of a misdemeanor suspect did not have exigent circumstances to justify non consenting, warrantless entry of 3rd party's residence to arrest the suspect.

i guess i just pulled this out of a hat...im not too good with a computer. ill go back and find the link hopefully and post the link and you can reread this again.

[chris2001]

tapout's sources are, from his posts, Law Enforcement Legal Update (01/16/06) and State V. Bessette.

Where is the articulable exigence in the neighbor scenario? So he hits him in the face and runs in the house? What evidence is he going to destroy? Can you articulate from his misdemeanor assault that he is a danger to the parties in his own home? I'm starting to see tapout's point here. A court is going to ask why you NEEDED to arrest him right then, at the expense of entering a PRIVATE dwelling without permission.

Sorry guys, I'm a big believer in citizen's constitutional rights. Forced entry into a home is a dicey affair. I would be all for setting up a perimieter and getting a warrant. Hell, ask yourself if a slap in the face is worth pooling the manpower of enough cops to sit on a house while waiting for a warrant, provided the time of day makes it feasible...maybe just enter it and come back later. Shitheads will eventually get picked up.

That there indicates that its case law for his state not anyone elses state.

[tapout]

That there indicates that its case law for his state not anyone elses state.

uhhhh, isnt that what ive been saying...i havent seen you post anything validating your statements other than opinions. at least i give you something to go with here.

[Terminator]

uhhhh, isnt that what ive been saying...i havent seen you post anything validating your statements other than opinions. at least i give you something to go with here.

You had originally said it was a law everywhere (not just Maryland) that you could not enter a house in fresh or hot pursuit unless it was felony, unless you knew it was the person's house...etc.

[tapout]

You had originally said it was a law everywhere (not just Maryland) that you could not enter a house in fresh or hot pursuit unless it was felony, unless you knew it was the person's house...etc.

i have since completely ammended that 1000 times. originally i was under the impression that it was con law...it doesnt appear to be. how many times do i have to say it before people realize its been said?

however, it is the law in more states than just MD...thats my point, nothing further, end of story

[121Traffic]

It's also important to remember that while case law from other states isn't always binding in other courts, it is ALWAYS reviewed and considered by other potentially far courts when considering a similar incident.

[Terminator]

i have since completely ammended that 1000 times. originally i was under the impression that it was con law...it doesnt appear to be. how many times do i have to say it before people realize its been said?

Say it once more...only because you were SO sure you were right by your original posts!!!!

[tapout]

Say it once more...only because you were SO sure you were right by your original posts!!!!

im still not wrong...

[chris2001]

uhhhh, isnt that what ive been saying...i havent seen you post anything validating your statements other than opinions. at least i give you something to go with here.

Because my statements were never in question as yours were.

[tapout]

Because my statements were never in question as yours were.

i questioned every one of your statements, because none of them were backed by anything except your opinion...and im still questioning them.

[chris2001]

i questioned every one of your statements, because none of them were backed by anything except your opinion...and im still questioning them.

As soon as I get to work I will do you one better I will copy my state statute page on it how you like that.

[tapout]

As soon as I get to work I will do you one better I will copy my state statute page on it how you like that.

id appreciate it

[tapout]

tapout's sources are, from his posts, Law Enforcement Legal Update (01/16/06) and State V. Bessette.

Where is the articulable exigence in the neighbor scenario? So he hits him in the face and runs in the house? What evidence is he going to destroy? Can you articulate from his misdemeanor assault that he is a danger to the parties in his own home? I'm starting to see tapout's point here. A court is going to ask why you NEEDED to arrest him right then, at the expense of entering a PRIVATE dwelling without permission.

Sorry guys, I'm a big believer in citizen's constitutional rights. Forced entry into a home is a dicey affair. I would be all for setting up a perimieter and getting a warrant. Hell, ask yourself if a slap in the face is worth pooling the manpower of enough cops to sit on a house while waiting for a warrant, provided the time of day makes it feasible...maybe just enter it and come back later. Shitheads will eventually get picked up.

by the way, i really appreciate this post, because i know you dont agree with me 100%, and im really not asking you to. but you can at least accept the fact that there may be some legitimacy to what ive stated. thank you

[Ken K]

Just have to share this case from the US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Dewes vs City of Bloomfield. No site to quote but google finds it. I didn't post because even the google site is long!

Please look at pages 14-16 on this Dewes case, rather easy reading, since they cite Welsh vs Wisconsin, Steagald vs US, and US vs Santana. These appear to be defining cases on this subject. These pages set the foundation for the federal court's reasoning.

This case is based on a suit involving an officer chasing a kid for suspicion of underage drinking and interferring by fleeing. Not huge charges. Kid found guilty and lawsuit against the city dismissed.

[Virginian]

Here ya go - this link opens a PDF of the file mentioned by Ken

[Ken K]

Thanks Virginian, I don't know how to do that stuff. Looks nicer than the site!

The whole case reads fast and deals with warrantless entry, exigent circumstances, and city and officer liability.

I thought the case on the pages I mentioned were pretty definitive.

Again, thanks.

[Virginian]

No problem Ken!

For future reference, if anyone wants to post a link and give it different text than the link itself, here's a short explanation of how. I'll try to make it pretty simplified since I don't know anyone's computer experience.

Hit this button in the post area -

Then you'll be prompted to enter the URL (the web address on the address bar, such as http://www.lawenforcementforums.com). You can go up and copy that, then paste it into the box for the URL. Copy by highlighting the URL, right clicking and selecting "copy." Paste by clicking into the box you want the URL to be pasted to, right clicking, and select paste. Then hit OK. Now the URL is entered into the message box with the appropriate code bracketing it on each end. The URL should appear highlighted. You can then type something, and the URL text will be replaced with what you type, but will still remain linked to the web page. If anything isn't clear about this, feel free to let me know and I'll see if I can help you out.

[chris2001]

Hey Ken I ran across that exact same one when searching for the KS case law. Apparently with it being a US Supreme Court decision it pops up for everything. Was going to post but someone was being nit picky and wanted a KS one.

[Ken K]

Hey Ken I ran across that exact same one when searching for the KS case law. Apparently with it being a US Supreme Court decision it pops up for everything. Was going to post but someone was being nit picky and wanted a KS one.

I liked the Iowa one because of the discussion on the other cases on in one spot.

Interesting case considering the charges!

Are you talking about the Welsh case??

[Ken K]

No problem Ken!

For future reference, if anyone wants to post a link and give it different text than the link itself, here's a short explanation of how. I'll try to make it pretty simplified since I don't know anyone's computer experience.

Hit this button in the post area -

Then you'll be prompted to enter the URL (the web address on the address bar, such as http://www.lawenforcementforums.com). You can go up and copy that, then paste it into the box for the URL. Copy by highlighting the URL, right clicking and selecting "copy." Paste by clicking into the box you want the URL to be pasted to, right clicking, and select paste. Then hit OK. Now the URL is entered into the message box with the appropriate code bracketing it on each end. The URL should appear highlighted. You can then type something, and the URL text will be replaced with what you type, but will still remain linked to the web page. If anything isn't clear about this, feel free to let me know and I'll see if I can help you out.

Yeah that's real clear!

Let's see...find the site, copy it, hit the thingy button on the post site, paste site into it, hit OK, and then type over it?