Court Opinion

ID: 9570188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:20:49.780727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:21.676611
License: Public Domain

Judge Hedrick
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority decision that no exigent circumstances existed justifying entry into the house owned *265and occupied by defendant and seizure of the drugs found in plain view. In my opinion, the officer was where he had a right to be and doing what he had a right to do, and Judge Winberry did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. The case relied on by the majority, Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 68 L.Ed. 2d 38 (1981), while similar in many respects to the instant case, is, in my opinion, clearly distinguishable in the very manner Justice Marshall went to great lengths to point out: “We have long recognized that such ‘hot pursuit’ cases fall within the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement . . . and therefore are distinguishable from the routine search situation presented here.” Id. at 218, 68 L.Ed. 2d at 49. The Court went on to say:
We are convinced . . . that a search warrant requirement will not significantly impede effective law enforcement efforts. . . . [The] exigent-circumstances doctrine significantly limits the situations in which a search warrant would be needed. For example, a warrantless entry of a home would be justified if the police were in “hot pursuit” of a fugitive.
Id. at 221, 68 L.Ed. 2d at 51.
In the present case, the officer had a reasonable description of the person he sought. When he approached the house with an arrest warrant, he saw a person fitting that description break away from her companions and run to the back of the house and through the door. Under these circumstances the officer was not only justified in pursuing the person into the house to make an arrest — he had a positive duty to do so. The fact that the person he pursued was not the one for whom the warrant was issued is of no legal significance under the circumstances here presented. The record discloses the officer had probable cause to believe that the person he pursued was a fleeing felon, and, indeed, the person he sought was within the house. Furthermore, under the exigent circumstances depicted by this record, the officer had a duty to seize the contraband, which was in plain view. I vote to find no error.