Discuss hot-pursuit entry into private premises. Incorporate Warden, MD. Penitentiary v. Hayden and U.S. v Santana in your discussion. Do you agree with the court decisions? Why or why not?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

In a "buy-and-bust" operation, a police informant bought heroin from Santana and paid for it in marked money. Police officers then had probable cause to arrest Santana. The officers went to Santana's home and identified themselves to the defendant as she stood in her doorway. When the defendant retreated into the house, the officers pursued her and caught her in the vestibule of the home. In a subsequent search, police found additional evidence of illegal drug transactions. Santana successfully moved to suppress the evidence found in the search, contending that the entry into her home was not justified. In holding that the arrest and the evidence obtained in the search incident to the arrest were lawful, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling suppressing that evidence and held: The only remaining question is whether her act of retreating into her house could thwart an otherwise proper arrest. We hold that it could not. In Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642 (1967), we recognized the right of police, who had probable cause to believe that an armed robber had entered a house a few minutes before, to make a warrantless entry to arrest the robber and to search for weapons. This case, involving a true " hot pursuit, " is clearly governed by Warden; the need to act quickly here is even greater than in that case while the intrusion is much less. The District Court was correct in concluding that "hot-pursuit" means some sort of a chase, but it need not be an extended hue and cry "in and about [the] public streets." The fact that the pursuit here ended almost as soon as it began did not render it any the less a "hot-pursuit" sufficient to justify the warrantless entry into Santana's house. Once Santana saw the police, there was likewise a realistic expectation that any delay would result in destruction of evidence. . Once she had been arrested the search, incident to that arrest, which produced the drugs and money was clearly justified. We thus conclude that a suspect may not defeat an arrest which has been set in motion in a public place, and is therefore proper under Watson v. United States, 96 S.Ct. 820 (1976), by the expedient of escaping to a private place. Further student responses in terms of agreement should be based on knowledge of the key distinction of an incident being set in motion in a public place.