Court Opinion

ID: 9492906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:53:17.33907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:33.070225
License: Public Domain

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting:
The majority opinion eviscerates long standing and important principles underlying the Fourth Amendment. Under the majority’s holding, a police officer’s “gut feeling” constitutes probable cause, and an *552officer is in “hot pursuit” even when he has not seen his suspect for over a half hour. Because these holdings contradict well-established Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, I dissent.
I. Warrantless Searches
“It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment laV that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). The presumption of unreasonableness can be overcome when the police are confronted with exigent circumstances. See Wisconsin v. Welsh, 466 U.S. 740, 749-50, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984). In these situations, the exigent circumstances relieve the police of the obligation of obtaining a warrant. Murdock v. Stout, 54 F.3d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir.1995). The exigent circumstances do not, however, relieve the police of the need to have probable cause for the search. Id. As a result, when the government relies on the exigent circumstances exception, it still must satisfy two requirements: first, the government must prove that the officer had probable cause to search the house; and second, the government must prove that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless intrusion. United States v. Lai, 944 F.2d 1434, 1441 (9th Cir.1991). Based on the record before us, the government failed to satisfy either requirement.
A. Probable Cause
In this case, the majority finds the officers had probable cause to search for Smith within the curtilage of Johnson’s property. In support, the majority relies exclusively on Officer Kading’s “gut feeling” that Smith was hiding on Johnson’s property. Notably, the majority does not provide a single objective fact to support its determination that Officer Kading’s “hunch” established probable cause. Because “hunches” are insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause, I strongly disagree with the majority’s analysis and conclusion. See Illinois v. Wardlow, — U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 673, 675-76, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000) (stating that reasonable suspicion, which is “less demanding than probable cause,” requires an officer to articulate more than an “unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’ ”); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (same); United States v. Kerr, 817 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir.1987) (emphasizing that even for a Terry stop, “hunches alone will not withstand constitutional scrutiny”).
Probable cause is hardly a new concept. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court has stated that probable cause exists when the “facts and circumstances” before the officer are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the items sought will be found in the place to be searched. See Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). The Supreme Court has emphasized that probable cause “demands” factual “specificity” and “must be judged according to an objective standard.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22 n. 18, 88 S.Ct. 1868. “Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction.” Id. at 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868. (emphasis added).
Despite these bedrock principles, the majority finds probable cause in this case even though Officer Kading did not provide a single objective fact to support his “gut feeling.” At the suppression hearing, Officer Kading testified that he initially thought that it was “logical” that Smith would turn right (southeast) in the woods and head directly toward his parent’s house. He was so confident of this prediction that when he radioed for backup, he told the responding officers to proceed to Smith’s parent’s house. Soon afterward, however, he had second thoughts. He *553stated that he tried to get inside of Smith’s head and out smart him. He speculated that if Smith thought the officers would go to his parent’s house, Smith would probably do the opposite and run toward Johnson’s house (southwest). When asked how he came to this conclusion, Officer Kading admitted that it was just a “gut feeling.”
Despite the lack of objective evidence to support Officer Kading’s “gut feeling,” the majority nevertheless finds probable cause based on its own “subjective” belief that Officer Kading’s hunch was “rational” and “reasonable.” In support of its conclusion, the majority relies on a series of sweeping generalizations that are totally unsupported by the record. For example, the majority sets up a scenario in which once Smith ran into the woods, he only had three options: he could run toward his parent’s house (southeast); he could run toward Johnson’s property (southwest); or he could run straight (due south). Based on this unrealistic scenario, the majority decides that “Kading made a practical common-sense decision” that Smith ran toward Johnson’s house. There are two problems with this conclusory reasoning.
First, the majority does not provide any facts to support Officer Kading’s “practical common sense decision.” For example, the majority does not claim that Officer Kading saw footprints leading toward Johnson’s property, heard sounds coming from Johnson’s property, or observed broken branches on the trees leading toward Johnson’s property. The only thing that Officer Kading knew was that a half hour earlier, Smith had run into the woods halfway' between Johnson’s driveway and Smith’s driveway. That is the extent of the objective facts.
Second, the majority does not explain why Smith only had three options. After all, this was a sparsely populated rural area. The terrain was hilly and covered with thick brush and trees. Once Smith got into the woods, his options were unlimited. In addition to the three options the majority listed, he could have run toward his own property (east); he could have ran past Johnson’s property (southwest); he could have stayed in the woods by the highway and used it as a lookout post; or he could have watched Kading drive down Johnson’s driveway and then run across the street into the woods on the other side of the highway (north). This is by no means an exhaustive list. It is just a sample of the additional options Smith had once Officer Kading lost sight of him. Given these choices, the majority has no basis for stating that Officer Kading’s decision to search the curtilage of Johnson’s property was “common-sense.”
Possibly recognizing the weakness of its argument, the majority tries to strengthen it by stating that it is “eminently reasonable” that Smith “would be attracted to the shelter of a structure — such as Johnson’s house, kennel, or shed.” This conclu-sory statement suffers from the same problems as the last. There are simply no facts to support Officer Kading’s hunch that he sought shelter on Johnson’s property. Based on the information in the record, it is just as likely that Smith would have sought shelter on his parent’s property, his own property, some other neighbor’s property, or out in the woods. As a result, the only thing supporting the majority’s statement is Officer Kading’s “gut feeling.” As the majority well knows, however, hunches are insufficient to establish probable cause. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. at 675-76; Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868; Kerr, 817 F.2d at 1387.
The majority’s efforts to distinguish the cases cited by the Appellant are equally unpersuasive. The first case the majority examines is United States v. Winsor, 816 F.2d 1394 (1987), vacated on other grounds, 846 F.2d 1569 (9th Cir.1988) (en banc). In Winsor, the police followed a bank robber to a “small two-story ‘residential hotel’ ” and watched him “disappear” *554into the building. Id. at 1395-96. The police went room to room and demanded that the occupants open their doors. Id. at 1396. The police eventually found the person they were looking for. Id.
On appeal, we rejected the government’s argument that the “hot pursuit” exception justified the warrantless search. We stated that inside a hotel, each room enjoys its own zone of protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Id. at 1397. Based on this principle, we held that although the police had probable cause to' enter the hotel, they did not have probable cause to search any particular room. Id.
The Appellant in this case argues persuasively that, like the individual hotel rooms in Windsor, all of the homes in the area where the police last saw Smith enjoyed a zone of privacy that could not be invaded without probable cause. The majority, however, rejects this analogy for the following irrational reasons. First, the majority claims that unlike Winsor where the suspects could have been hiding in any one of the rooms, Smith only had a limited number of hiding spots in the woods. Second, the majority states that once the officers “rationally” eliminate Smith’s parent’s house as one of his potential hiding places, it was logical for them to search Johnson’s property. Third, the majority claims that when Officer Kading followed his “gut feeling” it was “good police work.” Finally, the majority makes the bold statement that in this case, “Kading’s ‘gut feeling’ was a ‘reasonable belief.’ ” These far reaching statements, however, are totally unsupported by the facts of this case and our Constitution.
First, I do not agree with the majority’s assertion that there are fewer hiding places in a wooded, rural area, than in a hotel. In fact, the opposite is likely true. In Winsor, 816 F.2d at 1395-96, the police at least knew that the suspect was somewhere in the hotel; they just did not know in which room he was hiding. By contrast, in this case, the area where Smith was last seen is sparsely populated and covered with thick brush and trees. Johnson’s property alone contains over 12 acres and the adjoining property where Smith was last seen is at least as big. In this environment, the hiding places are potentially endless. This is especially true given that Smith was probably very familiar with the terrain in this area since it was essentially located in his backyard. Based on these facts, the majority’s attempt to distinguish the factual setting in Winsor from this case is unpersuasive.
Second, the record does not support the majority’s assertion that the officers had “rationally” eliminated Smith’s parent’s house as a potential hiding spot. Even when Officer Kading’s “gut feeling” redirected him toward Johnson’s property, he still left an officer posted at Smith’s parent’s house just in case Smith decided to return there. Despite the majority’s claim to the contrary, it was just as likely that Smith was hiding at his parent’s house as anyplace else.
Third, the majority’s statement that Officer Kading’s hunch was “good police work” is unsupported by the record and irrelevant to the probable cause determination. It is unsupported by the record because the officers never found Smith on Johnson’s property. It is irrelevant to the probable cause determination because probable cause requires “objective” facts that are totally lacking here. The majority’s “subjective” belief about what constitutes “good police work” has no bearing on the probable cause determination and cannot transform a “hunch” into probable cause. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (stating that “[i]f subjective good faith were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be ‘secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ only in the discretion of the police”).
Finally, there is no legal support for the majority’s broad statement that Officer *555Kading’s “gut feeling” was “reasonable belief.” The Supreme Court has clearly stated that gut feelings and inarticulable “hunches” do not equal reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause. Wardlow, — U.S. at -, 120 S.Ct. at 675-676; Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868. Based on this well-established precedent, the majority’s conclusory analysis is plain wrong.1
B. Hot Pursuit
Although the lack of probable cause is a sufficient reason to reverse, there is a second, independent reason for reversing; namely, the officers were not in “hot pursuit.” The doctrine of hot pursuit only applies when officers are in “immediate” and “continuous” pursuit of a suspect from the scene of a crime. Welsh, 466 U.S. at 753, 104 S.Ct. 2091; United States v. Salvador, 740 F.2d 752, 758 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 1196, 105 S.Ct. 978, 83 L.Ed.2d 980 (1985). The critical time for determining whether any exigency exists is the moment the officers make the warrantless entry into the defendant’s home. United States v. Lindsey, 877 F.2d 777, 781 (9th Cir.1989).
Based on the record in this case, it is clear that the officers’ pursuit of Smith was not “continuous.” Officer Fading broke the continuity when he chose not to pursue Smith into the woods. Instead of continuing the chase, Officer Fading decided to radio for back-up assistance. While he was waiting, Officer Fading drove back down the highway to Smith’s residence to retrieve the pepper spray canister he lost during his confrontation with Smith. By the time the back-up officers arrived and they decided to enter Johnson’s property, no one had seen Smith for over a half hour. Unless the “continuity” requirement is stretched beyond recognition, the facts of this case simply are not covered by the “hot pursuit” doctrine. The half-hour time period, during which the officers received no new information about where Smith had gone, turned the pursuit from lukewarm to ice cold.
The majority relies heavily on the fact that Officer Fading decided not to pursue Smith into the woods because he feared for his safety. In support, the majority cites to cases, including unpublished district court cases, where a half hour delay to wait for backup to arrive did not terminate the “hot pursuit.” The distinguishing characteristic in all of these cases is that the police officers never lost sight of the suspect they were pursuing. The officers always knew exactly where the suspect was, but decided that it would be dangerous for them to enter the home until reinforcements arrive. See e.g. Lindsey, 877 F.2d at 779 (noting that when backup arrived, officers saw the suspect through the window of the house); Griffin v. City of Clanton, 932 F.Supp. 1359, 1367 (M.D.Ala. 1996) (concluding that hot pursuit still applied when backup arrived because officers at the scene “clearly had not lost [the suspect’s] trail”). Under these circumstances, the “continuity” of the chase was delayed, but not broken. See United States v. Lindsay, 506 F.2d 166, 173 (D.C.Cir.1974) (stating that “[s]peed and continuous knowledge of the alleged perpetrator’s whereabouts are the elements which underpin this exception to the warrant requirement”).
In this case, however, the continuity of the chase was terminated permanently. Smith did not run into a confined area where Officer Fading could monitor his *556movements while waiting for his backup to arrive. Smith ran into a wooded area where he was free to roam for over a half hour. Once the alleged “pursuit” resumed, the officers no longer had any idea where Smith was. Under these circumstances, the continuity of the chase was clearly broken and the officers had to obtain a warrant before searching the curti-lage of Johnson’s property. Although this requirement is clearly inconvenient to law enforcement, any other outcome renders the concept of “hot pursuit” meaningless and allows the police to conduct warrant-less searches while investigating a suspect’s whereabouts.
What makes the majority’s finding even more egregious is its failure to follow the holding of Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 750, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984). In that case, the Supreme Court clearly stated that “an important factor to be considered when determining whether any exigency exists is the gravity of the underlying offense for which the arrest is being made.” Id. at 753, 104 S.Ct. 2091. Although the Court did not draw a bright line between felonies and misdemeanors, it cited favorably a number of cases that refused to permit warrantless entries of the home for “nonfelonious crimes.” Id. at 752, 104 S.Ct. 2091. Based on these cases, the Court found that “application of the exigent circumstances exception in the context of a home entry should rarely be sanctioned when there is probable cause to believe that only a minor offense ... has ben committed.” Id. at 753, 104 S.Ct. 2091.
The reason that Welsh is important to the analysis of this case is because Smith was only wanted for misdemeanor offenses. Although this does not definitely preclude a finding of exigent circumstances, it weighs heavily against it. Curiously, the majority chooses to ignore this holding and instead cites Justice White’s dissent in Welsh for the proposition that this type of analysis is inconvenient for the courts and could hamper effective law enforcement efforts. Id. at 760, 104 S.Ct. 2091 (White, J., dissenting).2 Although Justice White’s writings in Welsh are certainly interesting, a majority of the Supreme Court viewed that ease differently. Until the majority opinion in Welsh is overturned, we are bound by that reasoning.
Perhaps recognizing this problem, the majority states that the underlying warrants are not the issue. Instead, the majority decides to focus on the unlawful conduct that gave rise to the initial chase, i.e., resisting arrest. The change of focus, however, is unavailing since under Washington law, resisting arrest is only a misdemeanor. See Wash. Rev.Code § 9A.76.040. As a result, the Welsh analysis would still apply.-
In addition, the majority misses the central purpose of the Welsh analysis. No one is arguing that Officer Kading did not have a right to pursue Smith through the public streets after he resisted arrest. The question is whether the search can continue when it begins to encroach on a person’s Fourth Amendment rights. Put differently, the question is whose interest should yield — a person’s right to be free from warrantless intrusions or law enforcement’s interest in apprehending a fleeing suspect. See Brinegar, 338 U.S. at 176, 69 S.Ct. 1302. In situations where an officer is truly in hot pursuit and the underlying offense is a felony, the Fourth Amendment usually yields. See United *557States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42-43, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976). However, in situations where the underlying offense is only a misdemeanor, law enforcement must yield to the Fourth Amendment in all but the “rarest” cases. Welsh, 466 U.S. at 753, 104 S.Ct. 2091.3
Adding another wrinkle to this case is the fact that the officers encroached on the Fourth Amendment rights of a person who did not create the exigent circumstances. Here, it was Smith who created the alleged exigency when he resisted arrest. The officers, however, performed a warrantless search of the curtilage of Smith’s neighbor’s home (Johnson). Johnson’s lack of involvement in the situation that created the exigency is another factor weighing against the reasonableness of the warrant-less entry.
II. Conclusion
The majority opinion disregards long standing principles underlying the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, I dissent.

. The majority’s attempt to distinguish the case of United States v. Dawkins, 17 F.3d 399, 404 (D.C.Cir.1994), is equally unpersuasive and contains a serious misstatement of law. In its analysis, the majority claims that unlike the officers in Dawkins, the officers in this case had probable cause because "no clues ... led [Officer Fading] to believe, conclusively, that Smith was somewhere other than Johnson’s property.” This statement, however, turns the probable cause test on its head. Police officers do not obtain probable cause to conduct a search in one place based on the lack of probable cause to search another place. They obtain probable cause because the facts indicate that they will find the item they are looking for in the place to be searched. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868. No such facts exist in this case.

. Not only does the majority fail to follow precedent from the Supreme Court and this Circuit, but it is particularly annoying that it quotes language from my dissenting opinion in United States v. Scott, 520 F.2d 697, 701-703 (9th Cir.1975). In Scott, I argued that the “hot pursuit”' exception to the warrant requirement did not apply to the facts of that case. Id. I stated that the hot pursuit doctrine should be construed narrowly and expressed my “fear” that the phrase "hot pursuit” had "been given a meaning well beyond what was intended." Id. at 701. I take the same position here. For the majority now to use that dissenting opinion to support their argument causes one to wonder whatever possessed them to do so.

. The majority also claims that Welsh is distinguishable because the officers never went inside of Johnson’s home. This statement, however, is irrelevant to our Fourth Amendment analysis. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the “curtilage [is] considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984). Since the majority "assumes” that the area searched was part of the “curtilage” of Johnson's home, Johnson is entitled to the full protection of the Fourth Amendment.