Here's a transcript about exigent circumstances and REP- reasonable expectation of privacy. Here's a little bit of it:
Miller: I believe you mentioned
three exigencies or three exigent circumstances that might excuse the need for a warrant.
Solari: Right.
There are three re-occurring types of exigencies which allow police officers to make warrantless entries into REP areas. One occurs when an officer has probable cause to believe that the time it would take to go get a warrant would result in the destruction of the evidence. The second is when officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon chases that felon into a REP area. The third is when the officer needs to enter a home to save somebody from harm.
Miller: Well, let’s talk about hot pursuit. That sounds pretty interesting.
When can an officer pursue someone into a REP area?
Solari:
There are three requirements. First the officer needs probable cause to believe that a serious crime has been committed and that the person who is running away committed it.
Miller: And, this is
the same probable cause standard we discussed earlier; that is, information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and the suspect committed it.
Solari: Yes, but remember what the officer’s doing in a hot pursuit chase. He’s chasing the suspect into a REP area, like the sanctity of somebody’s home. Therefore,
the Supreme Court requires the officer to have PC that the suspect committed a serious offense. What exactly is a serious offense hasn’t exactly been defined by the Supreme Court; however, I think it’s safe to say that a felony should suffice as a serious offense. Additionally, misdemeanor crimes of violence are probably also good enough. For example, an officer can enter a home if he has probable cause to believe a crime of family violence has been committed.
Miller: So the officer must have probable cause that the fleeing suspect committed a serious crime. What’s the second requirement?
Solari:
The second, the pursuit of the suspect has to begin from a public place. We see these hot pursuits all the time on TV. The police begin chasing a suspect on a public street.
The officers have probable cause that the suspect committed a serious crime and they end up chasing him into someone’s home.
Miller: And you’re telling me it’s reasonable to chase that suspect into a REP area like somebody’s house.
Solari: Well sure.
The courts have held that the suspect can not defeat an arrest which started in a public place by ducking into a private place.
Miller: I guess that makes sense. Does the public place always mean public property?
Solari: No. Now, the Supreme Court defines public place for purposes of hot pursuit in terms of REP - reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, in the case of United States v. Santana, the police had probable cause to believe that the suspect had distributed narcotics our of her home. They drove by the suspect’s home, saw the suspect standing in the doorway of her home, stopped, and shouted “police”. The suspect retreated from the doorway into her house and the police chased her inside. The court held that entering that suspect’s house was justified as hot pursuit. The door frame of the suspect’s house was a public place, meaning that it was a place where the suspect was exposed to public view, and where the public could come.
Miller: Okay, so its probable cause to believe the suspect committed a serious crime; and second, the pursuit must begin from a public place.
Solari: Right.
Miller: There’s one more requirement, right?
Solari: Yes. Now think about a hot pursuit you’ve seen on TV.
The chase that you watch is immediate and is continuous. That’s the third requirement. So, for example, the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed or is committing a serious offense, the officer immediately and continually chases the suspect into that REP area. So, by that I mean the officer doesn’t stop for a coffee break on the way or something.
Miller: Well, I guess that makes sense. What if the officer loses sight of the fleeing suspect?
Solari:
Well it’s not necessary that the officers continually have the suspect in sight. There are cases where the suspect managed to enter a house without being seen. The officer can still enter that REP area, the house for instance, if the officer has probable cause that the suspect went inside. So, imagine a police officer chasing a suspect, the suspect goes around the corner and the officer momentarily loses sight of the suspect; however, witnesses standing right there on the corner pointing at 123 Main Street and shouting to the officer “he went in there.” That should be enough to establish probable cause that the suspect fled into 123 Main Street.
