Defendant was in a stolen car and ran on foot from the scene of an accident and was tailed to his home. The entry into the home was \u201chot pursuit\u201d and justified by exigent circumstances. United States v. Franklin, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135759 (E.D. Ky. August 31, 2011):<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the preventing-escape exception to the warrant requirement, and considering the factors enumerated in Rohrig, 98 F.3d at 1518, the Court finds the officers did not violate Franklin’s Fourth Amendment rights. The officers were pursuing a suspected felon who had stolen a car and run from the scene of an accident. It was reasonable immediately to set up a perimeter around the residence to which the suspect had apparently run to prevent further flight and potential escape. The Government’s interest in preventing the suspected felon’s escape was sufficient to justify the measured entry here, which was into the curtilage, as opposed to the interior, of Franklin’s home. Balancing the officers’ important interest against Franklin’s privacy interest in his side\/backyard, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the officers were lawfully present at the rear corner of Defendant’s home.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Officers had plenty of reasonable suspicion when he was seen again on a remote road near the border after having crossed over four days earlier in a different truck. Older trucks with new Mexican license plates are common. United States v. Gomez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135637 (D. Ariz. October 11, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading