Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): so by the presence of Sherman’s foot in the doorway. For these reasons, it is clear, as the Ohio Court of Appeals found, that Cummings’ “attempt to close the door constituted a termination of the consensual encounter, and communicated his lack of consent to any further intrusion by the officers.” Cummings, supra, 2002 WL 57979 at *4. Defendants contend, as did the State in response to Cummings’ motion to suppress, that when Cummings shut the door on Sherman’s foot, the officers had probable cause to believe that Cummings had committed the crime of assault, and any entry into his home to seize him was justified by exigent circumstances under the hot pursuit of a fleeing felon exception to the warrant requirement. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 354 F.3d 497, 503 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the Ohio Court of Appeals that 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing exigent circumstance exception to warrant requirement (B) recognizing hot pursuit exception as one example of exigent circumstances exception (C) recognizing exception (D) recognizing the searchincidenttoarrest exception to the warrant requirement (E) recognizing hot pursuit of a fleeing felon as an exigency exception to the warrant requirement
Output (English): recognizing the searchincidenttoarrest exception to the warrant requirement