LawTech Custom Publishing, Inc.
Copyright 2010
Investigative Constitutional Law

Chapter 13: Entry Issues







Entry by warrant, including the differences between search warrants, arrest warrants and inspection warrants.
Consent entry, and who can and cannot authorize it.
Entry under probation or parole terms.
The six categories of exigent circumstances that allow warrantless entry, including rescue, property damage, fresh pursuit, preventing escape, imminent destruction of evidence and public safety threats; what is required to satisfy these exceptions.
Scope of activity allowable after lawful entry, depending upon the justification.
Civil liability for unlawful entry.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Chapter 13: Entry Issues

 Police officers may not cross the threshold of a residence without warrant, consent, probation or parole authority, or exigency.
 Over the years, the Supreme Court has approved three basic categories of exceptions to the rule that warrants are required in order to enter a home.
 consent,
 probation or parole conditions, or
 limited varieties of exigent circumstances
Investigative Constitutional Law

Chapter 13: Entry Issues

 There are three basic categories of warrants that may be utilized by law enforcement officers.
 Search Warrant Entry
 A search warrant particularly describing the entered premises and specifically detailing the property to be seized permits valid entry.

Arrest Warrant Entry
 a valid arrest warrant will allow entry into the place reasonably believed to be the suspect’s residence when there is reason to believe he or she is within.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Chapter 13: Entry Issues

(Continued)
 Administrative Search Warrant Entry
 Law enforcement officers may also make lawful entry into a residence under an administrative inspection warrant, issued on probable cause, which will exist when a valid public interest supports the warrant.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Chapter 13: Entry Issues


In cases where there is no exigency, no PC for a warrant, and no known occupant on probation or parole search terms, the only lawful means of law enforcement entry into private premises is by consent.
 Apparent Authority
• Police may rely on consent given by someone who reasonably appears to have authority to admit them.
( Illinois v. Rodriguez )
 Implied Consent
• A person may imply consent to enter, without expressly inviting officers inside.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Chapter 13: Entry Issues

(Continued)



Voluntariness
 Consent is only valid if it is given voluntarily, without any official threats or coercion.
Third-Party Consent

Valid consent cannot be given by someone who apparently has no right to enter or conduct a search himself or herself.

During the period of lawful, paid occupancy, a hotel or motel employee cannot consent to entry into the guest’s rooms.
Scope of Activity
 Consent to enter can be revoked at the will of the person who gave it.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Chapter 13: Entry Issues

 Lawful entry into private premises may be made in conformity with the terms of a grant of probation or parole.
 If a person known to be a resident of particular premises has been placed on probation or parole on the condition that his or her residence be subject to warrantless, suspicion-less search and seizure by any law enforcement officer, an entry into the premises at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner will be a lawful entry ( Griffin v. Wisconsin ).
Investigative Constitutional Law

Chapter 13: Entry Issues

 In many cases, the urgency of the situation will not allow officers to take the time to seek a warrant or consent, or to try to determine whether a probation or parole condition might allow warrantless entry into a home or other private premises.
 Rescue
 When officers have reason to believe that someone inside a home is in imminent danger, immediate warrantless entry to rescue or provide lifesaving aid is reasonable.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Chapter 13: Entry Issues

(Continued)
 Substantial Property Damage

Immediate entry may also be made when it reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent substantial property damage.
• Burglary, vandalism, structure fire, etc.
 Fresh Pursuit

Immediate (“fresh”) and continuous (“hot”) pursuit of a dangerous suspect from the scene of a recent crime permits warrantless entry.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Chapter 13: Entry Issues

(Continued)
 Prevention of Escape

Exigent entry can be made to prevent the escape of a suspect from an attempted lawful detention or arrest set in motion while the suspect was in a public place.

See differences between Fresh Pursuit and Prevention of
Escape
 Imminent Destruction of Evidence
 The threatened imminent destruction of evidence is an exigency that excuses the warrant requirement.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Chapter 13: Entry Issues

(Continued)
 Public Safety and Caretaking

Warrantless entry for a compelling public safety or caretaking reason does not violate the Fourth amendment.

Scope of Activity
 Exigent entries do not license police officers to conduct a detailed search of the premises.
• As with all exceptions to the warrant requirement, exigent entries allow only limited search and seizure activity once entry has been accomplished.
Investigative Constitutional Law

Chapter 13: Entry Issues



Warrantless entries into private homes raise a substantial risk of civil liability if not fully justified and strictly confined in scope.

Even private offices and areas of business and commercial premises are subject to the same Fourth Amendment protection applicable to homes.
Because entries into private premises create such a high risk of suppression of evidence and civil liability, the training of officers will ordinarily stress the importance of appreciating the threshold rule:

The threshold of private premises may not lawfully be crossed without warrant, consent, probation or parole authority, or recognized exigency.
Investigative Constitutional Law