Commonwealth v. Jewett
471 Mass. 624
| Mass. | 2015Background
- At midnight Officer Holcroft observed a pickup commit multiple lane violations and then tried to stop it; the driver (defendant) failed to stop and led police on a slow, erratic chase through residential streets.
- Dispatcher informed Holcroft the truck was registered to the defendant; Holcroft knew the defendant from prior intoxication incidents.
- The truck pulled into the defendant’s unmarked driveway and entered the attached garage; Holcroft followed, prevented the door from closing, entered the garage, and ordered the defendant out.
- The defendant ignored commands, displayed signs of intoxication (odor, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, unsteady gait), shoved Holcroft, and was pepper-sprayed; he retreated into the house, fled out the back, and was later apprehended.
- Defendant was charged with OUI (third offense), resisting arrest, failure to stop, and related counts; he moved to suppress evidence arguing Holcroft’s garage entry violated the warrant requirement; the motion judge denied suppression, and the SJC affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless entry into garage/home during hot pursuit of a misdemeanor suspect is lawful | Commonwealth: hot pursuit creates exigency permitting entry to effectuate arrest for jailable misdemeanor | Jewett: hot pursuit exception does not apply to misdemeanors; warrantless entry impermissible for non-felonies | Held: Hot pursuit of a suspect believed to have committed a jailable misdemeanor permits warrantless entry when police have probable cause and pursuit is immediate |
| Whether officer had probable cause to arrest without a warrant | Commonwealth: erratic driving, multiple lane violations, near-collision, flight and refusal to stop gave probable cause for reckless operation (a jailable misdemeanor) | Jewett: observations insufficient for probable cause for jailable offense or arrest inside home | Held: Holcroft had probable cause to arrest for reckless/negligent operation and related offenses |
| Whether the Fourth Amendment (and art. 14) requires limiting hot pursuit to felonies | Commonwealth: Welsh does not categorically prohibit hot-pursuit entries for jailable misdemeanors; only nonjailable/minor offenses are excluded | Jewett: any misdemeanor cannot justify hot-pursuit home entry (relies on Welsh) | Held: No bright-line felony-only rule; hot pursuit can justify entry for jailable misdemeanors but not for nonjailable minor offenses (Welsh distinguished) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for OUI third-offense conviction (prior convictions proof) | Commonwealth: testimony and certified docket/ probation records sufficiently identify defendant’s prior OUI convictions | Jewett: prior-docket entries insufficiently connected to defendant | Held: Certified docket and order of probation conditions together sufficiently identified prior convictions to support third-offense classification |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (discusses exigent circumstances and limits on warrantless searches)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (hot pursuit permits warrantless entry to prevent suspect’s escape into a dwelling)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) (warrantless home entry for very minor, nonjailable offenses is generally unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Rogers, 444 Mass. 234 (2005) (warrantless home entry requires probable cause plus exigent circumstances or consent)
- Commonwealth v. Tyree, 455 Mass. 676 (2010) (Commonwealth bears heavy burden to prove probable cause and exigency on suppression review)