Opinion ID: 1168663
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Warrantless Arrest Within a Dwelling

Text: (3) Relying on People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal.3d 263 [127 Cal. Rptr. 629, 545 P.2d 1333], defendant next contends that the police officers improperly entered the dwelling of Nora in order to arrest him. The circumstances persuade us otherwise. Initially, we note that entry into Nora's home apparently was with her consent, which fact alone could support the rejection of defendant's claim. The parties neither argue nor rely on this fact; nor do we because the entry was permissible on other grounds. Within 75 minutes of the shooting defendant's car was discovered at his father's house from which point the officers went to Nora's home and arrested him. The police were in direct and fresh pursuit of a suspect reasonably believed to be armed who had already shot one victim. Contrary to defendant's contention, Ramey did not narrow the scope of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. As we more recently reaffirmed in People v. Escudero (1979) 23 Cal.3d 800, 808 [153 Cal. Rptr. 825, 592 P.2d 312], in appropriate circumstances the fresh pursuit of a fleeing felon may constitute a sufficiently grave emergency to justify an exception to the warrant requirement and make it constitutionally reasonable for the police to enter a private dwelling without prior authorization of a magistrate. [Citations.] In that case we approved an arrest within a defendant's residence when he had been surprised in the act of committing a burglary, had escaped, and had been identified through a description and car registration. The police then proceeded directly to the defendant's residence, made a warrantless entry and arrested him. We observed that although `fresh pursuit' of a fleeing felon must be substantially continuous and afford the law enforcement authorities no reasonable opportunity to obtain a warrant, it is not necessary that the suspect be kept physically in view at all times. ( Id., at p. 810.) Here, the officers were in expeditious pursuit which was continuous and direct. Moreover, as we have stated, defendant was suspected of a violent offense involving the repeated discharge of a firearm. Exigent circumstances validating a defendant's arrest within a dwelling may be deemed to exist when there is a likelihood that one of the suspects may have been an armed killer (see James v. Superior Court (1978) 87 Cal. App.3d 985, 991, 994 ...). ( People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, at p. 169 [158 Cal. Rptr. 281, 599 P.2d 587].) Defendant does not argue that the officers did not have probable cause to enter Nora's house, but that the entry should have occurred only after issuance of a warrant because of an absence of exigency. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the officers were fully justified in entering the dwelling to arrest defendant, and we affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress the evidence found in the home.