Opinion ID: 768110
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Underlying Warrants

Text: 47 Johnson's final argument focuses on the nature of Smith's outstanding warrants. Relying on Welsh, he argues that the five warrants underlying Kading's pursuit of Smith cannot support a finding of hot pursuit exigency. The Supreme Court hesitated to find exigent circumstances in Welsh especially when warrantless arrests in the home are at issue . . . when the underlying offense for which there is probable cause to arrest is relatively minor. 466 U.S. at 750. Thus, the gravity of the underlying offense is an important factor to be considered when determining whether any exigency exists. Id. at 753; see also Salvador, 740 F.2d at 759. Notwithstanding our hesitancy to engage in the type of measuring necessary to gauge the relative gravity of offenses for purposes of exigency determinations, Johnson's reliance on Welsh is misplaced for several reasons. See Welsh, 466 U.S. at 760 (A test under which the existence of exigent circumstances turns on the perceived gravity of the crime would significantly hamper law enforcement andburden courts with pointless litigation concerning the nature and gradation of various crimes.) (White, J., dissenting). 48 First, and most determinative of our outcome on this issue, Kading's pursuit was not based on the underlying five warrants alone, but also on a current and continuous violation of the law. Smith had just actively resisted Kading's attempts to arrest him. The officers in Welsh arrested the defendant in that case while he lay drunk and naked in his bed. Id. at 743. Had the defendant there not complied with the arresting officers, but instead leapt out his window and run down the street, the Court would have been faced with a very different case -and the neighborhood with a very different spectacle. 49 This first point is even more clearly demonstrated in view of one attempted rationalization of the Welsh court's emphasis on the gravity of the offense. There is some suggestion that the gravity of the offense limitation makes sense because the seriousness of the offense with which a suspect may be charged also bears on the likelihood that he will flee and escape apprehension if not arrested immediately. Id. at 759 (White, J., dissenting); see also United States v. George, 883 F.2d 1407, 1413 n.3 (One suspected of committing a minor offense would not likely resort to desperate measures to avoid arrest and prosecution.). Assuming the offenses underlying Smith's warrants could be considered only shallowly grave, not only is there a likelihood that he would flee anyway, but, in fact, he did flee. Whatever constraint Welsh may place on an officer's attempt to pursue a fleeing suspect became insignificant when Smith began to actively resist arrest. 50 Second, Welsh involved a warrantless intrusion into the suspect's home to arrest him for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence. 466 U.S. at 743. In support of its holding, the Court reiterated the long-established supposition that physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed. Id. at 748 (quoting United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972)). Thus, while the gravity of the underlying offense is certainly a factor, it is not the only variable influencing Welsh and its progeny. Here, Kading and Sigman did not enter Johnson's house in the process of searching for Smith. 51 Therefore, we conclude that Johnson's argument based on the severity of the warrants underlying the search for Smith is unpersuasive because Smith actively resisted Kading's attempts to arrest him and because the search never included the inside of anyone's home. III