Page 44 - TPA Journal July August 2022

justified his warrantless entry into the residence. pursuit, Officer Harden would have entered the
For reasons discussed below, the hot pursuit residence immediately when Nutt returned to his
exception to the warrant requirement does not trailer. Even assuming arguendo that there was a
apply in this case. hot pursuit, Appellant knew the arrest was going
to be for public intoxication, a Class C
Here, the jury instructions provided that exigent misdemeanor, not a felony. As stated above, the
circumstances would justify a warrantless intrusion jury instructions stated that an exigent
by police officers into a residence where the officer circumstance to justify a warrantless entry into a
was in immediate and continuous pursuit of a residence could exist when the officer was in
person for a felony offense (emphasis added). This immediate and continuous pursuit of a person for
language is adapted from Welsh v. Wisconsin,in a felony offense. Because the alleged offense was
which the Supreme Court found that there were no a misdemeanor, and there was no hot pursuit, no
exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry exigent circumstances justified the warrantless
into the residence of a driver whom the police had entry.
probable cause to believe had been driving while
intoxicated. Welsh was driving, swerved off the In conclusion, the evidence presented at trial
road, and came to a stop in a field. He then fled on including the bodycam video; testimony from Nutt,
foot to his residence. Shortly thereafter, police went Schutte (RV Park manager), and Britton (Nutt’s
to Welsh’s residence and entered without an arrest neighbor); and evidence of Appellant’s experience
warrant. The court reasoned that there was no “hot in law enforcement and his position as chief,
pursuit” because “there was no immediate or combined with the testimony from two very
continuous pursuit from the scene of a crime.” experienced officers (Officers Schumacher and
Furthermore, there was little remaining threat to Bujnoch) that there were no exigent circumstances
public safety once the suspect arrived at home for Appellant to enter Nutt’s trailer, allowed a
without his car. The Court noted that the gravity of rational juror to conclude that the arrest and
the offense for which the arrest is being made is an trespass were unlawful and that Appellant knew
important consideration in determining exigency. the arrest and trespass were unlawful. Therefore,
(“[I]t is difficult to conceive of a warrantless home the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s
arrest that would not be unreasonable under the determination that none of the warrant exceptions
Fourth Amendment when the underlying offense is applied in this case and that Appellant knew his
extremely actions were illegal. We affirm Appellant’s official
minor.”). oppression convictions. However, because the
evidence was legally insufficient to support the
Like the officers in Welsh, Appellant was not tampering with a governmental record conviction,
involved in a “hot pursuit” of Nutt as there was no we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and
continuity in pursuit. This is true whether the jury render an acquittal for the single count of
believed Nutt’s version of events (that Nutt was tampering with a government record.
asleep when the officers banged on his trailer door
and began the standoff), or Harden’s version of Ratliff v. State, Texas Court Crim. App., No.
events (that Nutt “stepped out of the shadows” after PD-0545-20, Mar. 16, 2022.
Harden returned from his earlier, unrelated service ****************************************
call). After the alleged offense occurred, Officer
Harden stopped pursuit by telling Nutt to go back
into his residence and driving away from the scene.
If there had been an immediate or continuous

40 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal