The suspect was found to be standing in the doorway. When the officers shouted "police," the suspect
immediately retreated into her home. The officers followed her. The Supreme Court ruled that there
was a need to act quickly, and held that "hot pursuit means some sort of a chase, but it need not be an
extended hue and cry in and about the public streets. The fact that the pursuit here ended almost as
soon as it began did not render it any the less "hot pursuit" sufficient to justify the warrantless entry...a
suspect may not defeat an arrest which has been set in motion...by the expedient of escaping to a
private place." U.S. v. Santana, 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976).
c. Destruction of evidence. In the Santana case, the Court also held that there was "a realistic
expectation that any delay would result in destruction of evidence." Several military cases have been
decided on this basis alone. In this context, the term "exigent circumstances" means "a situation where
the inevitable delay incident to obtaining a warrant must give way to an urgent need for immediate
action." In other words, is the police action necessary in order to preserve the evidence of appellant's
recent crime?" U.S. v. Phinizy. 12 MJ 40 (CMA, 1981). Investigators must be able to take reasonable
measures "to avoid destruction of evidence." U.S. v. Murray, 12 MJ 139 (CMA, 1981). The "danger of
destruction of evidence," then, is an exigent circumstance. U.S. v. Mitchell, 12 MJ 265 (CMA, 1982).
In one case, a Marine Corps corporal gave two other service members a ride to their barracks. As
he then drove away, he realized that they had stolen his portable television/radio set, and he then
returned to the barracks. He asked the duty NCO if he had seen the two individuals, and was told that
he (the duty NCO) had seen them, and that one of them had been carrying a television/radio set. The
duty NCO "thought immediate action was necessary to prevent the thief from leaving the barracks
through the unlocked back door. A search of the barracks was upheld, since "warrantless searches are
justified when the exigencies of the situation make that course imperative...The need for effective law
enforcement must be balanced against the right of privacy...Exigent circumstances include a realistic
expectation that delay would result in destruction of evidence...searches without command
authorization are permissible if immediate action is necessary to prevent removal or disposition of
stolen property." Relevant factors include "the likelihood of flight of suspects, imminence of destruction
or removal of evidence, and physical danger from delay." Again, there must be probable cause and
"immediate action is necessary to prevent the flight of suspects or the removal of evidence." Here,
then, the search "was justified on the basis of probable cause to believe that an offense had been
committed and exigent circumstances demanding immediate action to prevent the removal of stolen
property" U.S. v. Hendrickson, 10 MJ 746 (NCMR, 1981).
Remember, however, that these are probable cause searches. The presence of exigent
circumstances "merely dispenses with the requirement that such be determined by the commanding
officer." U.S. v. Soto, 37 CMR 203 (CMA, 1967). In one case, a Marine Corps sergeant looked
through a venetian blind into a barracks room and saw the accused transfer "a white substance" to two
others, who then consumed some of it. The sergeant believed that he was witnessing a drug
transaction in progress. The court concluded that he then "acted reasonably in gaining entry into the
MP1021
1-56
Previous Page
