MD: Hot pursuit can be days later, here exigent CSLI to find him

Police had court ordered exigent CSLI from that and a cell site simulator once he was identified as the shooter in a murder 13 days earlier. He was on the run into North Carolina and was eluding capture. This amounted to hot pursuit. Thomas v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 515 (May 1, 2026):

The appellant contends that there was neither an imminent nor a continuing threat, that the police were not in “hot” pursuit of him, and that they could have obtained a warrant or court order to track the appellant’s phone and use the cell-site simulator. We are not persuaded. First, an immediate or continuing threat is one example of exigent circumstances. As the appellant acknowledges in his brief, Carpenter, supra, recognized that the sort of exigent circumstances that may excuse the warrantless tracking of a cell phone in a particular case includes “the need to pursue a fleeing suspect,” 585 U.S. at 319-20, a circumstance that we have already concluded was established by the evidence.

Second, “hot pursuit means some sort of a chase, but it need not be an extended hue and cry in and about (the) public streets.” United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42-43 (1976) (citation modified). The fact that the shooting occurred two weeks before the request for real-time CSLI from the appellant’s service provider does not undermine the exigency. The police did not fully identify the appellant as the shooter until two weeks after the incident, by which time he had already fled to North Carolina. By the time the police arrived in North Carolina to apprehend the appellant at a motel, he had already left, indicating he was still evading them. After learning his current phone number, the police promptly requested real-time CSLI from his service provider to locate him.

Finally, the argument that the police could have obtained a warrant does not negate the exigency of the situation. Exigency is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of circumstances. See Williams, 372 Md. at 403; Lange, 594 U.S. at 302. Other factors supporting the existence of exigency included the seriousness of the underlying offense, the potential danger to both the police and the community, and the appellant’s demonstrated attempts to evade law enforcement.

Viewing the facts as they appeared at the time and in the light most favorable to the State as the prevailing party, see Williamson v. State, 413 Md. 521, 531-32 (2010), we find no error in the circuit court’s conclusion that the use of real-time CSLI from the appellant’s service provider and a cell-site simulator was justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to exclude the challenged evidence.