I don’t believe that this is true. I’ve been a cop for 17 years and have read thousands of legal decisions, and I’ve never seen any circumstance where pursuit is restricted to only felonies. I guess it may be possible, but I’ve never heard of it.
Of course, as soon as you run away (or walk, even) you have committed another crime (Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer here in Washington).
Personally, I would never follow someone into their house in this circumstance. Not because of worrying about the legality - because it is just too dangerous. I would probably just mail the tickets or seek an arrest warrant and get you another day.
As to the OP - Well, you could always tell the officer to leave and see what happens. Depending on state laws, it might work (it wouldn’t here). Another important point would be if the officer activated his lights before you pulled into the driveway. As soon as he hits the lights, you are “seized”. At least under Washington law, the officer then has the right to hold you until he has completed the stop and would not have to leave your yard.
I neglected to read the last cite in Bear_Nenno’s post. I guess I’ll have to review that case in more detail.
However, this statement by Bear_Nenno: “It depends what you mean by “defend themselves”. If you mean using reasonable means to resist a false arrest, then yeah” is very, very wrong! The courts have ruled consistantly that there is no right to resist even a false arrest (so long as the only thing threatened is a loss of liberty).
This is because even the most knowledgable citizen can’t know at the moment of arrest if the arrest is legal or not. Even though you may know for a fact that you are innocent of any crime, if the arrest is based on probable cause it is still legal.
OK, I’ve read this ruling now. It does not say what Bear_Nenno is claiming, and this ruling really doesn’t apply to this discussion in any way. The court off-handedly mentions that there was no hot pursuit in this case. The entire discussion in this ruling is whether or not there were exigent circumstances (which, like hot pursuit, is an exception to the search warrant requirement).
The only other mention of pursuit in this ruling refers to Santana where the court allowed hot pursuit into a home.
For what its worth, my take on the “running into the house and you’re safe” wouldn’t work. I would think the police officer has every right to follow you into the house.
My reasoning is that he has no way of knowing that the house you went into is your own. For all he knows you could be trying to take someone in that house hostage.
You maybe should read it again. They do talk a lot about exigent circumstances, but I think you’re missing the point. Here was the final ruling:
Two exigent circumstances that allow you to chase someone into the home are: it’s for a felony (see italics above) or there is reason to believe evidence will be destroyed. One of the big arguments in that case was the fact that they needed to get the BAL from the guy before it was too late. But that did not qualify as destruction of evidence. They did talk a lot about exigent circumstances but it is completely relevant! Being a fleeing felon is an exigent circumstance. And this case has limited Santana to fleeing felons (because the gravity of the underlying offense) and other exigent circumstances like destruction of evidence.
As far as resisting an unlawful arrest. I think you mean that courts have consistantly ruled that there is no right to resist with violence. Maybe I should have been more clear. Instead of “reasonable means” (where I meant running away, passive noncompliance, verbal) I should have said Non-Violently resist. Badge, if you try to make a false arrest on someone and he yells at you, calls you names, argues and then runs away, he is not guilty of resisting arrest. The arrest has to be lawful for it to be resisting. He has that right. He does not have the right to fight you though. Not like you would ever see it in reality though. If you accidentaly were engaged in a false arrest, someone is either going to comply with you, or resist you with violence. So that is why you are of the belief that they cant resist you at all.
Same with the hot pursuit thing. When was the last time you were in a heated foot chase with someone for a misdemeanor? Further, a misdemeanor where you would risk following the guy right into his home. The reason the issue doesn’t come up much is because it doesn’t happen much. If you are going to chase someone into their house, you are probably chasing him for a felony. Officer’s get used to the idea that they are always ok to pursue someone into the home because 99.99% of the time, they are.
Kinda like patting someone down for weapons. So many cops believe that they can simply pat someone down for “officer safety”. They believe this because in practice that’s what they always do. However, there actually has to be probable cause to believe the person may be armed before you can even pat him down.
The reason cops always get away with it, is so many things can be considered probable cause to believe he may be armed. Including the catch all, “furtive movement”. If he’s making “furtive movements” you can frisk him. Thats your call. Other causes are the guy’s buddy was armed, weapons were involved in the crime, you know the guy and he’s been armed in the past, … all reasons you would automatically pat him down anyway.
But just try to say, “I patted him down for my safety” in court. You need have a better reason than that.
I see what you’re getting at, but it doesn’t really work like that. He would need reason to believe it was not the thug’s house.
A lack of proof that it is the thug’s home, is not enough to believe it isn’t. Although, if the thug gained entrance by means of a window or by kicking in the door… or if you heard screaming once he walked inside or something. Those are good enough reasons to enter the house.
Bruce, I wished you had just asked the cop; if you were nice about it, he might have told, without implying you are a hardened criminal who needs detailed instructions on evading the police in half a dozen individual states (o.k, two states and a district).
Running a stop sign is not a crime. But it can be probable cause, so I guess the cop could use that.
Do it again, Bruce_Daddy, only try your rebellion and let us know.
Peace,
mangeorge
OK, I read it again and the section that you quoted. No where does it say “the Supreme Court limited Santana to the hot pursuit of fleeing felons.” This ruling does not in any way limit hot pursuit to fleeing felons. It doesn’t even limit exigent circumstances to felons; it only says that the gravity of the underlying offense is an issue to be considered. Exigent circumstances and hot pursuit are two distinct exceptions to the search warrant requirement, and a limit imposed on one does not automatically apply to the other.
**
No, I didn’t mean that at all. There is no right to resist arrest, period.
**
Yes, you can yell at me, call me names and argue all you want. But if you run away, that is resisting arrest! Regardless of whether the reason for the original arrest was lawful or not, you can be convicted of resisting arrest.
**
Actually, most of my foot pursuits have been for misdemeanors (DUI, theft, assault etc.) However, I would almost certainly not chase someone into their own home, for a misdemeanor or a felony. Of course, if the crime were serious enough, I would risk my life to catch him. But I’m not usually that crazy.
I don’t have much time here, so my usual expansive dialog will be a bit abbreviated:
There is a common-law right to resist an illegal arrest. Most states, but not all, have vitiated or eliminated that right by statute or case law.
A pat-down (a brief, non-intrusive procedure that allows contact only on the outer clothes - no reaching into pockets, for instance) must be predicated not on probable cause but on a reasonable, articulable suspicion. This is a level of suspicion less than that of probable cause, but greater than a mere unparticularized, inchoate hunch).
Hot pursuit is not limited to felonies as a matter of federal case law. Different states may have different rules, and different departments may have different rules of procedure.
I typed up a big long diatribe but after reading it I realized I was being petty and over-reactive, probably from being hung over. Therefore I’m just going to let it go but let me just say I did read your whole post and I still don’t want unsolicited advice.
-Bruce_Daddy, trying hard not to be an asshole this morning.
Bruce_Daddy , even if you were to politely tell him to get off your property, and even if you managed to work the whole situation into a court, it is still the cops word vs. yours. I mean, it’s your right, but who is the judge going to believe? It doesn’t seem right when it happens to you, but in the grand scheme of things, it is such a small deal.
I couldn’t imagine that the ticket would be over $50, but then again, it’s points on the insurance. I got pulled over for making an illegal left hand turn in the middle of the night once, and that ticket was $65.*
*Of course, it was really $10, with a *15 officers fee, *15 city fee, *25 court fee.
Ok… don’t take my word for it. Here they say it in plain english for you.
This is the explanation by appellate judges for overturning a case where a lady ran into her house and the cops chased her because a witness said she was drunk.
Bricker,
I’ll give you the first two. The resisting arrest could very well be different everywhere. The “articulable reasonable suspicion” sounds right. Point is, they need a reason.
But how is hot pursuit not limited to felonies everywhere? It is a US Supreme Court decision.
A cop can chase you into your house for a misdemeanor but only if it is a chase. He can’t find out you committed a misdemeanor and then just walk in. That’s only for a felony. So yes, he can follow you into your home for a traffic ticket.
Any resistance to a peace officer’s arrest, regardless of whether the arrest is lawful or not, is illegal and punishable by the Texas Penal Code.
Reasonable Suspicion is all it takes for a pat down, or even an investigation. Though that one’s directed by United States Supreme Court case law.
What is meant by “walk in” to your home? What if you don’t open the door?
Can he/she kick it down, or use a flash/bang like on tv?
Ordinarily you needn’t open without a warrant.
Of course everything said here has or is liable to change due to the so-called “Patriot Act”.
