CA8: Hot pursuit justified entry into bank robbery suspect’s home

Hot pursuit was shown for entry into defendant’s home after a trail of evidence led officers there. At the door they could see young children inside and someone on the stairs even though the woman answering the door insisted no one else was there. United States v. Maxwell, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34274 (8th Cir. Dec. 27, 2023). [This reads like classic hot pursuit from the early days of the doctrine.]

“An officer’s authority to detain and arrest is dictated by statute and caselaw. Yet, Appellant does not identify similar authority governing an officer’s power to interview a suspect or motorist involved in an accident outside that officer’s jurisdiction. Thus, Appellant fails to show a violation of his constitutional rights, and as such, there was no prejudice from his counsel’s alleged failure to file a motion to suppress.” In addition, the exclusionary rule is reserved for constitutional violations, not this. State v. Bruce, 2023-Ohio-4719 (7th Dist. Dec. 22, 2023).* [And how is an interview necessarily a seizure?]

Defendant had standing in the hotel room he was permitted to stay in by the actual renter. He had clothes and other belongings there. He also had standing in a storage building he rented despite its use to hold contraband. “Because I have concluded the evidence in the search warrant affidavit was not stale and that the affidavit established a sufficient nexus between the crimes being investigated and the properties to be searched, I need not consider the parties’ alternate arguments regarding the application of the good faith doctrine.” United States v. Holiday, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229314 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 27, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Hot pursuit, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.