Member
| One place to start: Yeager v. State, 104 S.W.3d 103, Tex.Crim.App.,2003.
In Yeager the "hot pursuit" issue is an arrest outside the officer's jurisdiction but both the opinion and the dissenting opinion mention warrantless entry and cite federal caselaw.
So what I'm saying is, this CCA case from 2003 doesn't answer your question but it does show that the CCA is aware and follows the federal case law and it may also be a handy place to start for additional research of the cases cited in the opinion. |
| |
Member
| Here's a US Supreme Court case:
The District Court was correct in concluding 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 a “hot pursuit” sufficient to justify the warrantless entry into Santana's house. * * * We thus conclude that a suspect may not defeat an arrest which has been set in motion in a public place, and is therefore proper under Watson, by the expedient of escaping to a private place.
United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42-43, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 2410, 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976). |
| Posts: 527 | Location: Fort Worth, Texas, | Registered: May 23, 2001 |
IP
|
|
Member
| That Santana decision was discussed in Yeager. |
| |