Markus v. State, 160 So. 3d 488

Officer on foot patrol observed Markus and others on a public street; officer smelled marijuana after seeing Markus flick and exhale a cigarette-like item.
Officer asked Markus to step over for detention; Markus backed away and then ran into the open garage of his residence; officers pursued and subdued him after a struggle.
During a pat-down after arrest, officers found a firearm in Markus’ waistband; Markus is a convicted felon charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Markus moved to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an unlawful warrantless entry/arrest inside his home; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him.
On appeal, the court reviewed de novo whether exigent circumstances (hot pursuit) justified crossing the home threshold without a warrant for a misdemeanor-level offense.

Issue	Markus' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether officers lawfully entered/pursued into the residence without a warrant	Warrantless entry into home to arrest for misdemeanor (marijuana possession/resisting) violated Fourth Amendment; suppression required	Hot-pursuit exigency justified pursuit into garage and arrest without warrant	Reversed: hot pursuit of non-felony without evidence of danger or risk of evidence destruction did not justify warrantless home entry
Whether flight after officer command justified crossing threshold	Flight from officer does not eliminate home’s heightened protection absent exigent circumstances	Flight set in motion a valid public arrest that officers could complete by following into home	Rejected: flight alone insufficient to overcome presumption against warrantless home entry for minor offenses
Whether suspected marijuana posed risk of evidence destruction justifying entry	Marijuana cigarette had been discarded in public prior to entry, so no risk of destruction	Entry was reasonable to effect immediate arrest and secure scene	Rejected: no evidence destruction risk; officers could have monitored threshold while obtaining warrant
Whether presence/risk to public or officers supported exigency	No shown threat to safety or property; other officers on scene could secure exits	Pursuit created potential public safety concerns supporting exigency	Rejected: record lacked facts showing grave emergency or immediate danger to justify exigent entry

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (Fourth Amendment bars warrantless entry to effect arrest in a home absent exigent circumstances)
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (government must show exigent circumstances to overcome presumption of unreasonableness for warrantless home entries, especially for minor offenses)
United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (hot pursuit may justify following suspect into home when arrest set in motion in public; involved felonies)
Riggs v. State, 918 So.2d 274 (Fla.) (exigent-entry exception requires grave emergency, compelling need, and no time to secure a warrant)
Gasset v. State, 490 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA) (high-speed chase into garage supported warrantless entry due to danger presented)
State v. Williams, 128 So.3d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA) (hot pursuit into home upheld where circumstances presented danger and ongoing firearm offense)