Hot Pursuit of a Fleeing Misdemeanor Suspect

at
Categories
Tags

 

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:

  1. Entry into Garage:
  • Lange v. California (2021):Deals with warrantless entry into a home for pursuing a fleeing misdemeanor suspect.

Analysis: This case is directly relevant. Here, the officers entered the garage, which is considered an extension of the home, to pursue the driver for a misdemeanor offense (leaving a child unattended). According to Lange v. California, absent exigent circumstances, a warrantless entry into a home to pursue a fleeing misdemeanor suspect is generally unreasonable.

  1. 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.

Analysis: Even if the officer’s entry was unlawful, the plain view doctrine might still apply. However, for this doctrine to apply, the initial entry into the location where the evidence is found must be lawful. Here, based on Lange v. California, the initial entry seems to be unlawful.

Therefore, based on the case law:

  • 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).

Conclusion:

The defendant’s motion to suppress has a strong foundation. The officer’s entry into the garage, based on Lange v. California, seems like a Fourth Amendment violation. This casts doubt on the legality of the evidence (weapon) obtained under the plain view doctrine.

Disclaimer: This analysis is for informational purposes only and doesn’t constitute legal advice.

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.
Hi, how can I help?