Hot Pursuit of a Fleeing Misdemeanor Suspect
Officers were patrolling the local shopping center when they noticed a baby who was left unattended in the backseat of an SUV. The weather on that day was 90 degrees. Just as the officers were about to approach the vehicle, the mother ran out of the local CVS, started the vehicle, and headed down the street. The officers followed the vehicle and turned on their lights shortly thereafter. Instead of stopping, the mother turned into a driveway, entered the open garage, and immediately closed the garage door.Officers followed the vehicle and were able to run into the garage prior to the doors closing. Upon entering the garage, officers noticed an automatic weapon or a machine gun in the corner of the garage that they immediately recognized as being a prohibited weapon.
The driver has been charged with a Class C misdemeanor for leaving a child unattended in a vehicle and possession of an illegal weapon, a Class D felony. The mother/defendant has filed a motion to suppress arguing that the officer had no right to enter her home without a warrant and that the plain view doctrine does not apply to the discovery of the weapon because the officers illegally entered the garage in the first instance.
Using the cases of , 594 U.S. ___ (2021), and , 480 U.S. 321 (1987), analyze and discuss the following:
Whether the officers had the right to enter the fleeing suspects garage for a violation of the misdemeanor offense of leaving a child unattended in a vehicle?
Whether the plain view doctrine allowed officers to seize the automatic weapon in the garage?
Support your reasoning and answers to each question with the case law provided.
Sample Solution
Motion to Suppress Analysis
The defendant's motion to suppress hinges on whether the officer's entry into the garage violated the Fourth Amendment and tainted the evidence (the weapon) found under the plain view doctrine. We will analyze these issues using the provided cases:
- Entry into Garage:
- Lange v. California (2021):Deals with warrantless entry into a home for pursuing a fleeing misdemeanor suspect.
- Plain View Doctrine:
- Arizona v. Hicks (1987):Established the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence in plain view if: (1) they were in a lawful position to view the evidence, and (2) the evidence is immediately apparent as contraband.
- The officers likely violated the Fourth Amendment by entering the garage without a warrant or exigent circumstances (established in Lange v. California).
- Since the initial entry was potentially unlawful, any evidence obtained under the plain view doctrine (the weapon) might be excluded (based on the reasoning in Arizona v. Hicks).