Page 31 - Nov Dec 2015
P. 31
established law, Viruette’s belief there was cer’s hot pursuit of an offender seeking to
probable cause to arrest Barnes when Barnes avoid arrest is an exigent circumstance justi-
pulled away from his attempt to prevent entry fying nonconsensual entry into the offender’s
into the dwelling was also not objectively residence.”); LaHaye v. State, 1 S.W.3d 149,
unreasonable in light of clearly established 151–52 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet.
law. ref’d) (“We conclude that the arrest of LaHaye
was [lawful because Officer] Martin was in
The Carrolls also challenge the warrantless hot pursuit of LaHaye” for evading arrest, “a
entry into Barnes’s home. Deputy Viruette Class B misdemeanor”).) The Carrolls do not
justifies his warrantless entry into Barnes’s point to authority that the law on hot pursuit
home under the exigent-circumstances of misdemeanor suspects was any clearer in
exception to the warrant requirement. 2006, when Viruette entered the residence,
Viruette contends that he was in hot pursuit of than in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled
Barnes for evading detention and arrest. the law was not then clearly established.
Specifically, Viruette contends that, under Therefore, the Carrolls have not met their bur-
Texas law, “an officer may enter a residence den and Viruette is entitled to qualified immu-
to make a warrantless arrest” of a suspect nity—though we express no view on whether
seeking to avoid detention or arrest—which is Viruette’s entry into Barnes’s home was con-
a misdemeanor offense—and that federal law stitutional.
is not clearly established.
The Carrolls allege that Deputy Viruette,
The Supreme Court recently held that, as of Deputy Celestial, Deputy Ellington, Deputy
2013, “federal and state courts nationwide Carter, Deputy Evans, and Deputy Hulsey
are sharply divided on the question whether used excessive force in repeatedly applying
an officer with probable cause to arrest a sus- their Tasers to Barnes and striking Barnes with
pect for a misdemeanor may enter a home batons, kicks, and punches to subdue and
without a warrant while in hot pursuit of that arrest Barnes. The Carrolls also allege Deputy
suspect.” Stanton v. Sims, 134 S. Ct. 3, 5 Sims unconstitutionally stood by the scene
(2013) (per curiam). The Court held that an and neglected to intervene under a
officer who entered a home in 2008 in hot “bystander liability theory.” To establish a
pursuit of a suspected misdemeanant was Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim, “a
therefore entitled to qualified immunity plaintiff must first show that she was seized.
because the law was not clearly established at Next she must show that she suffered (1) an
the time of the officer’s conduct. injury that (2) resulted directly and only from
the use of force that was excessive to the need
Here, like the California courts mentioned in and that (3) the force used was objectively
Stanton, Texas courts have upheld warrantless unreasonable.”
entries in hot pursuit of persons suspected of
committing the misdemeanor offense of evad- In assessing the reasonableness of the use of
ing detention or arrest. (See, e.g., Rue v. force, we give “careful attention to the facts
State, 958 S.W.2d 915, 918 (Tex. App.— and circumstances of each particular case,
Houston [14th Dist.], 1997, no pet.) (“An offi- including the severity of the crime at issue,
NOV/DEC 2015 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 27
