LA4: Hot pursuit into home for mere intoxication unreasonable

Hot pursuit into defendant’s home on suspicion of merely being intoxicated violated Payton and Welsh and was not supported by Santana. State v. Lala, 1 So. 3d 606 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2008):

Turning to the circumstances at hand, we find that Officer Sullivan’s pursuit of the defendant into her home was unreasonable. While we are not prepared to say that [Santana]’s rationale cannot be extended beyond the context of probable cause to arrest, given the special protections of the home, the State must present a strong interest in conducting a warrantless entry into the home. Here, the defendant’s actions would certainly have appeared perplexing to an observer, and were sufficient to warrant further investigation by Officer Sullivan and his partner; however, once the defendant retreated into the home, any concern for public safety was alleviated, and any concern for Lala’s personal safety could have been addressed by other measures short of forcible entry into the home. Given the limited severity of Lala’s suspected offense, the State’s interest would have been well served by first knocking on the defendant’s door. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence.

Search of defendant’s car was justified by the automobile exception because there was probable cause to believe it contained contraband. Therefore, the court did not have to reach search incident or inventory as an alternative. State v. Wilson, 111 Conn. App. 614, 960 A.2d 1056 (December 16, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.