OH4: “Hot pursuit” v. “lukewarm amble”; what is this one?

The trial court suppressed defendant’s statements after his DUI arrest in his garage. The officer claimed hot pursuit, but it looked more like a “lukewarm amble” because it was seriously disputed that the officer made any effort to communicate pursuit. Defendant walked into his garage and tried to close the door. The officer parked behind him without any lights on. But remanded for factual developments. State v. Cross, 2014-Ohio-1046, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 6235 (4th Dist. March 11, 2013):

[*P33] In contrast to the facts in Flinchum, where the defendant avoided police on two separate occasions and ran into his house, it is questionable whether the facts here demonstrate a “hot pursuit.” At no time did Deputy Rhodes activate his cruiser’s lights or sirens, definitively alerting appellant of police presence. The trial court even describes the encounter as “lukewarm amble,” rather than a hot pursuit. Accordingly, it is uncertain whether a “hot pursuit” actually took place here.

[*P34] As for the third requirement, it is also questionable whether the appellant “fled into a house to avoid arrest.” No evidence was presented that the appellant ran into his garage. Deputy Rhodes even testified that appellant did not run from him and that “it wasn’t a pursuit.”

[*P35] The State possesses the burden to demonstrate that the facts in this case should meet an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of warrantless entry to a home. The trial court in this case recognized in its findings of fact that this was a “lukewarm amble” just as Justice Pfeifer’s dissent referenced the set of facts in Flinchum. Therefore, this Court reiterates the statements of Justice Pfeifer: …

[*P37] This is a close case. Because of the importance of the Fourth Amendment Rights of our citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, we remand this case for the trial court to reevaluate the evidence in light of the mistaken finding of fact. We are reluctant to find that one mistake of fact taints all other facts and disregard the decision of the trial court. However, in this case, it is disconcerting that the trial court had discredited the balance of the appellant’s testimony as a result of the mistaken finding of fact. A remand in this case would allow the trial court to evaluate the testimony of the parties without the mistake of fact. A remand would also allow the trial court to take additional evidence and/or conduct a new hearing.