Warrantless Searches

What rule did Payton v. New York establish about home arrests?

Absent exigent circumstances, officers may not cross the threshold of a home to make an arrest without a warrant.

• Officers must have either:
  1⃣ a search warrant, or
  2⃣ an arrest warrant + reason to believe the suspect is inside.

• The Court emphasized protecting the sanctity of the home.

Fleissner’s note: “Reason to believe” = reasonable suspicion (though SCOTUS hasn’t clearly defined it).

Takeaway: Officers need an arrest warrant and a reasonable belief the suspect is within before entering a residence.

What if officers have an arrest warrant but enter a third party’s home to find the suspect?

Under Steagald, an arrest warrant is not enough. Officers must obtain a search warrant for the third party’s home.

Rationale:

• Prevents police from using an arrest warrant to search multiple homes for one suspect.

• Protects innocent third parties’ privacy interests.

Takeaway: To search for a suspect in someone else’s home, police need both probable cause the suspect is there and a search warrant, unless consent or exigent circumstances exist.

How does Litteral limit Steagald?

When the suspect is a co-resident of the home, Steagald doesn’t apply.
Under Payton, police can enter and arrest the suspect and use evidence found against both residents.

Takeaway: A co-occupant’s privacy interest doesn’t block arrest or incidental evidence when the arrestee lives there.

When can officers enter a home without a warrant?

When exigent circumstances exist — an emergency that makes waiting for a warrant unreasonable.

Requirements:
1⃣ Probable cause that a crime or evidence is present.
2⃣ Reasonable (objective) belief that an emergency exists.
3⃣ Entry and search limited to resolving that emergency.

Key: Focus is on objective reasonableness, not officer intent.

What did Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) and Michigan v. Fisher (2009) establish?

• Police may enter without a warrant to render aid or prevent injury if it’s objectively reasonable to think someone needs help.

• Test: Objective Totality of Circumstances (TOC).

Facts (Brigham City): Officers saw a fight through a window and entered to stop it.
Holding: Entry was reasonable under TOC — no need to assess subjective intent.

Takeaway: Officers can enter to protect life or safety without a warrant when facts show an objective emergency.

What rule came from Kentucky v. King (2011)?

• Exigent circumstances can justify entry even if triggered by police presence, so long as officers don’t threaten or actually violate the Fourth Amendment.

• Police-Created Exigency Doctrine: Officers can’t manufacture the emergency.

Example: Knocking on a door ≠ violation; yelling “Open up or we’ll break it down” = violation.

Takeaway: Subjective intent doesn’t matter — the test is objective reasonableness under TOC.

What five factors help determine if exigent circumstances exist for evidence destruction (U.S. v. Rubin, 1973)?

1⃣ Urgency and time needed to get a warrant.
2⃣ Likelihood contraband will be removed.
3⃣ Danger to officers if they wait.
4⃣ Suspects’ awareness of police pursuit.
5⃣ Destructibility of contraband and suspect behavior patterns.

Takeaway: These factors guide courts in assessing whether police reasonably believed evidence was at imminent risk.

When can police enter a home in hot pursuit (Warden v. Hayden, 1967)?

• Officers in immediate, continuous pursuit of a fleeing felon may enter the home without a warrant to make the arrest.

• The search must relate to the emergency, not be a full evidentiary sweep.

Takeaway: Continuous pursuit of a serious offense justifies entry; misdemeanors rarely do (Welsh v. Wisconsin, 1984).

What did Mincey and Flippo establish?

• There is no “homicide scene” exception to the warrant requirement.

• Police may enter to secure the scene or render aid, but must freeze and obtain a warrant for further search.

• The Plain View Doctrine still applies.

Takeaway: Responding to a homicide doesn’t justify a general search — limited entry only for safety and preservation.

How did Illinois v. McArthur (2001) balance privacy and evidence preservation?

• Police prevented a suspect from entering his home alone while they sought a warrant, allowing entry only under supervision.

• The Court held the restraint reasonable — it preserved evidence while protecting the home’s integrity.

Takeaway: The “gold standard” approach: maintain the status quo and prevent destruction while obtaining a warrant.

What is a protective sweep, and when is it permitted?

A quick, limited inspection during or immediately after an arrest to ensure no dangerous persons are hiding.

Two-Prong Rule:
1⃣ Automatic sweep: Officers may look in spaces immediately adjoining the arrest area (no RS needed).
2⃣ Reasonable suspicion sweep: Officers may extend the search beyond the arrest area if facts suggest another person may pose a danger.

Takeaway: Protective sweeps are for safety, not evidence-gathering. Anything found in plain view during a valid sweep is admissible.

What are the limits of a search incident to arrest inside a home?

• The search is limited to the arrestee’s person and the immediate grab area — places they could reach for a weapon or evidence.

• Once handcuffed or moved, the grab area shrinks accordingly.

Takeaway: No authority to search other rooms or closed containers outside the immediate control area. However, items in plain view while lawfully present may still be seized.