572 F. App'x 819
11th Cir.2014Background
- Police pursued a stolen car suspect; pursuit extended into Fuller’s backyard.
- Detectives observed Fuller in the backyard and Fuller immediately discarded a firearm.
- Officers entered the yard, detained Fuller, and recovered a loaded .45 firearm and cocaine.
- Fuller was read Miranda rights, waived them, and admitted ownership of the firearm.
- District court denied Fuller’s motion to suppress the firearm and statements.
- Court held that the hot-pursuit exception justified entry into the curtilage; suppression denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hot pursuit justified entry into curtilage | Fuller: pursuit had cooled, no ongoing hot pursuit. | Police ongoing pursuit justified entry. | Yes; pursuit not cooled; entry justified; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santana v. United States, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (hot pursuit doctrine allows entry during pursuit of suspects)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) (hot pursuit threshold; not convinced where pursuit not continuous)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (home-entry presumptively unreasonable without warrant)
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (curtilage treated as part of home for Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (definition and protection of curtilage)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (hot pursuit exception to entry into premises)
- United States v. Holloway, 290 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2002) (exigency burden on government to justify warrantless search)
- United States v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir. 1991) (exigent circumstances doctrine)
- United States v. Franklin, 694 F.3d 1 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard for applying law to facts in suppression)