NCJ Number
87928
Journal
Western New England Law Review Volume: 3 Issue: 3 Dated: (Winter 1981) Pages: 387-408
Date Published
1981
Length
22 pages
Annotation
Courts should assess warrantless police entry into a suspect's home to effect a warrantless felony arrest by considering all surrounding circumstances and officers' perceptions of those events.
Abstract
In evaluating the reasonableness of search and seizure activity under the fourth amendment, courts have considered the justification for initiating an intrusion, the scope and degree of the intrusion, the manner of execution, and the locale in which the search and seizure is conducted. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless arrests within an individual's home are presumptively unreasonable with certain well-defined exceptions such as exigent circumstances. Moreover, the prosecution has the burden of demonstrating the existence of exigent circumstances. The courts generally apply standards first articulated in Dorman v. United States to exigent situations, considering gravity of the offense, grounds for believing a suspect is armed, a clear showing of probable cause, strong reasons to believe the suspect will be found on the premises, and a likelihood of escape without quick apprehension. While the Dorman approach is useful, it should not shift attention from the fundamental issue -- whether the circumstances confronting the officers rendered timely resort to the warrant process infeasible. This must be resolved on an ad hoc basis since the existence of an exigency may vary according to factors within the broad Dorman categories. The unannounced entry doctrine may be waived in an emergency when the need for quick police action outweighs privacy concerns. Thus, probable cause should be the common denominator by which the courts judge police activity in an alleged exigency. The article contains 110 footnotes.