Court Opinion

ID: 9605193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:31:29.694706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:33.442364
License: Public Domain

Neely, Justice,

dissenting:

I dissent from the Court’s holding that the warrant-less entrance into the defendant’s residence was illegal. The police were informed that an armed robbery had taken place, the defendant had fled. As stated in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1964), “the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.” 387 U.S. at 298. While the Fourth Amendment makes warrantless searches per se unreasonable, it does not require officers to stop in the course of an investigation if to do so would endanger lives or help effect an escape. Warden v. Hayden, supra. Here, the police were in “hot pursuit” of the defendant, (although admittedly they did not have him in plain view, but rather were following a very warm trail) had reasonable grounds for arrest, and could reasonably believe weapons might be destroyed or wielded against them, or an escape effected if immediate entrance were not made. This case comes squarely within the exceptions established by Warden v. Hayden, supra, to warrant requirements and no policy of protecting citizens from unreasonable searches is served by the majority’s holding on this point.