25

Police are chasing person A. Person B observes this and lets person A into their home. The police knock at the door of Person B, asking to enter in order to search for person A. Person B refuses to let the police enter without a search warrant.

Assume for this question that the police has beyond reasonable doubt seen that person A has entered the property of person B. They are not searching at random.

As far as I know, normally, police need a court-issued warrant or similar to enter private property/domicile without permission of the occupant (owner/tenant). In the scenario described, do police need to wait for a search warrant? This would potentially allow person A to get away, unless police use additional resources to surround the property of person B until the search warrant is there. Person A might also use this time to hide or destroy incriminating evidence, if applicable.

Does it make a difference whether the police consider person A to be dangerous? Does it make a difference whether person A is a minor?

I'm interested in the situation in Germany in particular, but also in other places.

Improve this question
15
  • 2
    I have no time to write a full answer, maybe someone else can, but it's basically de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gefahr_im_Verzug Commented Jul 28 at 8:28
  • 1
    In your scenario, do the police have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is there? I am guessing, based on what you set up, that they saw the person enter the property and know they are there. Commented Jul 28 at 15:40
  • 1
    @JoeW Yes. The scenario I envision is that person B opens the door to person A and that the police observe this. Maybe person B knows person A and wants to help, or maybe person B knows that the police officer(s) in question are known for being excessively violent and wants to protect person A. Commented Jul 28 at 20:16
  • 1
    @quarague There is no legal basis for church sanctuary in Germany. Police can ignore it. Them not doing that is basically a result of political considerations and not a question of law. Commented Jul 29 at 6:52
  • 2
    @usr-local-ΕΨΗΕΛΩΝ Whatever B might be charged with (if anything) is a different question, and one that I did not ask here. Commented Jul 29 at 12:35

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
22

The "hot pursuit" exception to the warrant requirement allows police to pursue a fleeing suspect into a home, without a warrant. See United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976):

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.

The Court limited this exception somewhat in Lange v. California, 594 U.S. ___ (2021). If the offence suspected is a misdemeanor, the pursuit into a home is only justified upon specific exigent circumstances: the "hot pursuit" alone does not constitute justification in the case of a misdemeanor. Chief Justice Roberts, in a concurrence, would have followed the Canadian approach, which eschews this distinction.

R. v. Macooh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 802:

It is well settled at common law that police officers have the power to enter private premises to make an arrest in hot pursuit.

This exception applies without distinction between indictable and other types of offences (summary, provincial), as long as the arrest itself could be made without a warrant.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    wasn't there a case or three where police in hot pursuit were found immune from destroying a home to the point it was condemned and had to be torn down? Commented Jul 29 at 12:24
  • @Trish I believe at least one or more of those cases, the police also had the wrong house/the suspect was not in the house. Commented Jul 29 at 16:50
11

Not necessarily.

If person A is (strongly) suspected to have committed a serious crime, to pose an imminent danger, or to destroy valuable evidence, and asking a judge for a warrant even over phone hotline (which does exist) would put averting this danger into question, and the danger in question outweighs the risk of impinging on the tenant's rights, the officers may enter the premises without having a warrant.

As @nvoigt correctly pointed out, the relevant term here is "Gefahr im Verzug", which can be translated in law terms as "exigent circumstances", or more common English "imminent danger". (Note that the linked English WP page does not exactly reflect the usage in German law as detailed on WP:de.)

Danger is not limited to other people or property (e.g. police does not need a search warrant to enter a house from which they smell gas, or see a sniper firing), but also includes the danger of evidence being destroyed (like e.g. drugs flushed down the toilet, a murderer seen fleeing the scene escaping through the back door etc.). Basically, the officers in question must reason that, if they requested a warrant first, the looming danger would have materialized or the evidence / suspect would be gone, and that the danger / crime in question is serious enough to legitimate an unwarranted entry.

This will be checked by a judge post-facto. (Basically, the officers must defend themselves against the accusation of unwarranted entry, and convince the judge.) Evidence gathered by unwarranted, unjustified entry can be ruled non-admissable.

For details as to which articles of which statutes are involved in this (and there are many), I would direct you to the WP page I linked above.

Improve this answer
6
  • Sound like if they're running after a suspected shoplifter, the bar may not be met? Commented Jul 29 at 15:59
  • 1
    Should Gefahr im Verzug be imminent danger or better a danger posed by delay? Commented Jul 29 at 16:17
  • @gerrit: IANAL. But that's the gist of it. "Under restriction of commensurability" is the term, tells me my translation tool. (Damn, English legalese is just as bad as German...) Commented Jul 29 at 17:14
  • 2
    @o.m.: The legal term seems to be exigent circumstance, and it's explained in terms of "imminent danger". Your "danger posed by delay" IMHO better reflects what it's about, but I try to stick to what I can find in references and not try to make up terms as I go, especially not on Laws.SE. ;-) Commented Jul 29 at 17:17
  • 2
    @gerrit "Angemessenheit" of government actions (that they must be appropriate, reasonable, commensurate) is a principle that has been given constitutional rank by the continuing rulings of the German Constitutional Court, even though it does not appear literally in the constitution. The Court deems it a foundation of a democratic government and the inviolability of dignity. It is a basic protection against government overreach even when pursuing legal and legitimate goals. That is, in Germany the police (or anybody else, for that matter) cannot legally shoot apple thieves. Commented Jul 31 at 9:17
10

No

Police may enter and remain for a reasonable time on private property in order to effect an arrest of a suspect (s10 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002)

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.