NCJ Number
72920
Journal
LEGAL POINTS Issue: 105 Dated: (1980) Pages: complete issue
Date Published
1980
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Changes in police arrest warrant procedures which will be required as a result of Payton v. New York are discussed, and guidelines for procedures to be followed in the areas which the court did not specifically address are suggested.
Abstract
On April 15, 1980, the Supreme Court held in this case that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest. The impact of the decision on police procedures may prove to be minimal. Whenever practicable, officers should obtain an arrest warrant before entering a suspect's home to arrest. Reason to believe the suspect is in the home is also required. However, in circumstances where immediate police action is required, the warrant requirement may be relaxed. The most difficult implication of the decision involves determining which circumstances justify a warrantless entry to arrest. Other court decisions provide some guidance in determining such exigent circumstances. In Dorman v. United States, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals noted that the police are under a heavy burden to show that the circumstances would not withstand the delay incident to obtaining a warrant. Officers are advised to consider whether a grave offense is involved; whether the subject is armed and dangerous; whether good reason exists to believe the suspect committed the crime and is on the premises; whether the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended; and whether a peaceable or a forcible entry will be required. In Warden v. Hayden, the Supreme Court allowed a warrantless search where the circumstances required immediate action when the police were in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon. The Court's rationale focused upon the officers' need to confiscate weapons and apprehend the suspect. This exception was further broadened to prevent the destruction of evidence in United States v. Santana. Over 40 footnotes with references are included.