Thomas - 1
Exigent Circumstances
CJUS 5200.001: Legal Aspects of the Criminal Justice System
Shain Ellison Thomas
Dr. Peggy Tobolowsky
Spring 2015
Exigent Circumstances
Exigent circumstances refer to the existing exceptions to general warrant requirements as
enshrined by the Fourth Amendment seizures and searches. Such situations occur whenever law
enforcement officers have probable causes but no adequate time to obtain a warrant, particularly
in urgent circumstances. Oftentimes, courts determine the reasonableness of an officer to make
warrantless seizures and searches (Slobogin 72). Put differently, courts have the responsibility of
determining whether it was impractical for an officer to obtain a warrant. For instance, it would
be reasonable for an officer to make warrantless seizure of armed suspects or those planning to
run away. Exigent circumstances may also be occurs when an officer is pursuing a fleeing
suspect involved in criminal activities. In exigent circumstances, serious and imminent threat to
life and property, evidence destruction and escape of suspects occur. Most people understand
that officers encountering exigent circumstances must be allowed to act reasonably with the
intent of defusing the situation.
The purpose of this research paper is to examine exigent circumstances. More
specifically, the research paper will provide a succinct explanation of the historical evolution of
exigent circumstances as provided for by the Fourth Amendment. The research paper will also
examine the role of the doctrine of exigent circumstances in the criminal justice system. In
addition, the research paper will look into the underlying concepts of exigent circumstances. The
balancing test vis-à-vis the exigent circumstances will be analyzed. After this analysis, the
research paper will delve into emergency situations versus exigent circumstances as well as
constitutional provisions and constitutional protections under the current legal framework.
Moreover, the research paper will look at the doctrine of exigent circumstances in Texas. An
analysis of the use of the doctrine of exigent circumstances in other criminal justice systems will
also be very important. Lastly, the research paper will scrutinize the strengths as well as the
weaknesses of the doctrine of exigent circumstances in Texas and other jurisdictions.
The Fourth Amendment in the United States (U.S.) protects people’s rights to ensure that
they are secure in their own houses against any unreasonable seizures and searches. Denying

Thomas - 2
admission of evidence gathered through unlawful search helps in ensuring that officers adhere to
the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. In most situations, law officers must obtain a search
warrant before getting a suspect’s house whenever they intend to carry an arrest and conduct a
search (Kessler 112). However, there exist many circumstances where obtaining a warrant is
unreasonable. These are the exigent circumstances. Law enforcers must act reasonably in the
event of imminent and serious dangers. During exigent circumstances, officers take a forcible,
non-consensual and warrantless entry into houses. Primarily, failure to take significant actions
can lead to evidence destruction, loss of lives, property destruction or escape of violet and
desperate fugitive. On the flipside, overacting and misjudging a circumstance can culminate to
mental and physical trauma to occupants of a house, suppression of evidence discovered in the
house and engender impertinence for enforcement of the law.
The legal provisions under exigent circumstances require officers to make two pertinent
determinations. First, officers must determine the existence of an exigent circumstance.
Secondly, after determining where the circumstance is in indeed exigent, officers must determine
whether to make a forcible entry, carry out either a protective sweep or a complete search. The
Fourth Amendment requires the existence of a detached and impartial power interposed between
the populace and the police ((Bergman, Paul and Sara 21). Laws and general warrants that permit
seizures, arrests and searches contravene the Fourth Amendment provisions. The Fourteenth
enforces the Fourth Amendment against states by proscribing unreasonable seizures, arrests and
searches with the intent of safeguarding security as well as the privacy of people against any
arbitrary invasion by law enforcers. Warrantless searches, arrests and seizures are unreasonable.
Primarily, reasonable warrants must receive the support of probable cause. Most importantly,
they must be limited both in scope and in requirements as sworn by the officer. The law enforcer
is accountable to the court that issued the warrant. In the Chandler v. Miller (1997) case, the
Supreme Court required that a search should be predicted upon individualized misgiving of an
offense. However, ‘special needs’ provide particularized exceptions. To satisfy the
reasonableness test as espoused by the Fourth Amendment, the search warrant should be
premised upon individualized suspicion.
The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizures and searches. Courts sanction
warrants. To issue warrants, a probable cause must exist for a court to issue a warrant.
Introduced in 1789, the Fourth Amendment provided a solid response against Anti-Federalist

Thomas - 3
objections envisioned in the new U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Congress submitted the Fourth
Amendment to states. By 1791, a majority of these states had already ratified the Fourth
Amendment. In the following, the amendment was adopted. In the Fourth Amendment, seizures,
arrests and searches must be limited to the information in the court’s disposal. Oftentimes, law
enforcers swear by the specific information provided in court. Initially, the amendment was only
limited to physical intrusion on property. In the Katz v. United Case (1967) case, the U.S.
Supreme Court observed that protections like warrant requirement goes beyond individual
privacy and physical locations. Officers must have a warrant for seizure and search activities.
There are various exceptions such as consent searches, border searches, vehicle searches
as well as exigent circumstances. This exclusionary rule facilitates the enforcement of the Fourth
Amendment. The Weeks v. United States (1914), evidence acquired through violation of Fourth
Amendment is inadmissible in criminal trials. Evidence obtained through illegal search is also
inadmissible. This amendment has its origins in English law. Application of the Bill of Rights in
the U.S. was restricted to federal government. It went through judicial dormancy. After
ratification, a majority of Americans forgot the last ten constitutional amendments. Federal
jurisdictions on criminal law took a new height in the 19th
century after passage of the Sherman
Antitrust and Interstate Commerce Acts. The criminal jurisdiction in the federal level expanded
to encompass areas like narcotics. Over time, questions of the Fourth Amendment arose. The
Supreme Court resolved these questions by arguing that the Fourth Amendment guarantees
security, privacy and dignity of people against invasive and arbitrary acts by law enforcers bereft
of search and seizure warrants. In the Mapp v. Ohio (1961) case, the Supreme Court advised that
the amendment applied to all states through the Due Process Clause in the Fourth Amendment.
Initially, the Fourth Amendment gave premium to the citizenry’s property rights. The
amendment restrains the government from intruding upon people’s houses and properties. In
early 20th
century, the Fourth Amendment proscribed physical intrusion and not police
surveillance such as wiretaps. For instance, the judge in the Olmstead v. United States (1928)
case prevented law officers against physical intrusion. The protections in the Fourth Amendment
expanded in after the decision in the Katz v. United States (1967) by encompassing privacy
rights. Furthermore, the amendment prevents people against unreasonable seizure of personal
property, people without a seizure warrant. Property seizure occurs whenever meaningful
interference on individuals’ property rights are threatened. The government should not detain

Thomas - 4
people even momentarily bereft of lucid and reasonable suspicion with only a few exceptions. In
the Delawere v. Prouse (1979) case, the Court determined that a law enforcer was ruled to have
made illegal seizure by stopping an automobile and consequently detaining the driver with the
intent of checking his license and the automobile’s registration. If the law enforcer possessed
reasonable and articulate suspicion that the motorist had no license or the automobile was
unregistered, this amounted to violation of the Fourth Amendment. The amendment must obtain
written permission. A seizure or a search is unconstitutional and unreasonable when done with
an invalid warrant.
The doctrine enables to law enforcers to act reasonably. Most importantly, it allows
police officers to act immediately to prevent occurrence of imminent danger. Oftentimes, police
officers encounter circumstances that demand immediate or even unusual action. During such
circumstances, police officers are allowed to circumvent normal and usual procedures. Put
differently, emergency conditions. In such circumstances, failure of police officers to act
becomes unreasonable. For instance, police officers facing imminent danger must act promptly
to prevent the occurrence of physical harm. Ordinary citizens also face exigent circumstances.
During such situations, their action must pass the reasonableness test. A neighbor who breaks a
door or window to enter a burning house with the intent of saving someone inside does so
reasonably. Such breakage is within the provisions of exigent circumstances. In these situations,
police officers must take prompt action to make a search, seizure or an arrest for which a
probable cause is present. The U.S. Constitution permits law enforcers to announce, knock and
be disallowed entry before breaking into a house.
Though warrantless seizures, arrests and searches are presumptively unreasonable
according to the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has established exceptions to the
generic rule. This is specifically the case for exigent circumstances. Lower courts held that the
rule on exigent circumstances failed to apply whenever an exigency was established by the
conduct of police officers. However, there lacked a sound consensus on how to establish when
law enforcers create suchlike exigencies impermissibly. However, this grey area under the law
was clarified during the Kentucky v. King (1972) where Justice Alito ruled that the rule on
exigent circumstances applies provided the law enforcers do not utilize threatened or actual
desecration of the Fourth Amendment (Pettry 12-14). An exigent circumstance justifies non-
compliance of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. Exigent circumstances exist when an

Thomas - 5
individual’s safety or life is under threat. In addition, it occurs when police officers realize the
imminent danger of a suspect to escape. In such a circumstance, police officers are permitted to
make a warrantless arrest. Law enforcers may also be tempted to make a warrantless search,
arrest or seizure when evidence is almost getting destroyed or removed. In some quarters,
exigent circumstances are terms as special circumstances or emergency circumstances.
Officers are expected to decide on facts as opposed hunches and suspicions in
determining the need for immediate and warrantless searches. An exigent circumstance is
measurable through the existing facts as known by officers. In light of the requisite experience
and training, officers must make common-sense interpretations in establishing exigent
circumstances. Unquestionably, officers facing exigent circumstances attempt to avert potential
dangers. In determining the existence of an exigent circumstance, officers must decide when to
rely on information provided by untested or anonymous informants. In the event of questionable
reliability of information, officers are not restricted from acting. Doubting the reliability of such
information decreases whenever possible emergency increases. Whenever practicable, the police
should obtain a valid warrant. Sometimes, well-delineated and conventional exceptions to
warrant apply. The Court decisions in the Dumbra v. United States (1925) and the Caroll v.
United States (1925) cases, the U.S. Supreme Court underscore the primacy of probable cause in
exigent circumstances. Whenever a party has consent to make a search, a warrant may not be
necessary.
The government possesses probable cause to arrest a suspect whenever the situation and
the available information points out the suspect have committed a crime. In other others, the
probable cause to make an arrest should exist before arrest is done. Evidence gathered after
making the arrest cannot apply retroactively in justifying the arrest. Whenever law enforcers
carry out a search, the Fourth Amendment provides that a warrant establish a probable cause in
order to believe that a search will help the officers in uncovering contraband or a criminal
activity. In dealing with exigent circumstances, law officers should possess legally adequate
reasons to necessitate the search (Katz, Lewis and Neil 88). Routinely, courts argue that the
existence of exigent circumstances only occurs when threats are imminent. During imminent
threats, officers believe harm will occur in the event that they delay in taking actions. During
such a situation, obtaining a warrant may not be feasible. Reasonable officers believe an exigent
circumstance occur when failure to act would culminate to property losses and loss of lives.

Thomas - 6
Imminence of threats reduces when potential urgency increases. In addition, courts argue that
exigent circumstances occur when officers have no time to secure a search warrant. During
exigent circumstances, officers are expected to observe due diligence. Courts sometimes figure
out existence of exigent circumstances through judicial second-guessing.
Law enforcers carry out warrantless searches in exigent circumstances anytime obtaining
search warrants and seizure warrants is impractical or dangerous. For instance, the Terry stop
permits law enforcers to frisk a suspect for weapons. In Weeks v. United States (1914), the Court
permitted a search on arrested people with the intent of preserving crucial evidence that could
have been destroyed. Most importantly, carrying out the unwarranted search guaranteed the
officers that the suspects did not possess any arms. In the Caroll v. United States (1925), it was
ruled that officers could carry out a search on motor vehicles if they suspected it of carrying
contraband bereft of a warrant. In addition, blood was drawn as evidence for a drunk-driving
case in the Schmerber v. California (1966) without a search or seizure warrant. Principally,
obtaining a warrant in such a scenario was not feasible since the alcohol content in the suspect’s
blood would reduce. Moreover, law enforcers are allowed to arrest suspects on hot pursuit
without a warrant. The Federal Ninth Circuit recognizes emergency and exigency as the two
exceptions to warrant requirement to home searches. Emergency arises from societal caretaking
whilst exigency arises from the investigation function of the law enforcers. Police working under
the emergency exception can enter a house aiming at investigating emergencies that threaten life.
The Balancing Test helps courts in determining whether warrantless search or entry in a
house was justified. Before the balancing test emerged, most courts employed a modified
plausible cause analysis. Courts determine whether the officer relied on feasible information
when deciding. This method raised many problems especially with the increasing community
caretaking cases. Using this methods, courts only examined the size of the societal caretaking
threat in determining whether a circumstance was exigent. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court
determined that legality of any search or entry based upon exigent circumstances does not rely
on an artificial proof standard by on whether officers utilized objective reasonableness. An
officer’s action is objectively reasonable if its need outweighs its intrusiveness. In the Illinois v.
Lidster case, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the gravity of public concerns addressed by the seizure
or search determines the officer’s reasonableness. Moreover, a court will determine the severity
caused by interference on individual liberty. The scope and justification for officers to act

Thomas - 7
increases when the size, likelihood and urgency to prevent an action without a warrant during
exigent circumstances.
Ordinarily, there are a number of factors to consider when determining if exigent
circumstances permits police entry. First, the gravity of an offense that a suspect is charged can
justify warrantless search or seizure. Secondly, if law enforcers reasonably that a suspect is
armed, they have a reason to make a warrantless police entry. Thirdly, in the event that a clear
probable cause that demonstrates that indeed a suspect did commit a crime can also be a solid
justification for warrantless entry since it would amount to an exigent circumstance. In addition,
whether strong reason exists to show that a suspect is within the premises in question, then law
enforcers can treat this as an exigent circumstance and carry out a warrantless search or seizure.
At times, there exists a strong preponderance showing that suspect can escape whenever law
enforcers do not apprehend him/her. Such a scenario would require law enforcers to act swiftly
to apprehend the suspect. Moreover, during peaceful circumstances, law enforcers can make
warrantless search, arrest and seizure (Daigle 8). Concisely, many factors create exigent
circumstances to allow for warrantless entry. Federal courts treat these factors as ‘Dorman
Factors.’ The New York state refers to ‘Dorman Factors’ as the Cruz Criteria. These factors
enable suppression courts to determine whether a police entry was necessitated by exigent
circumstances. These factors are not exhaustive and neither are they definitive. Courts have the
authority to evaluate other factors that a situation was urgent enough to justify warrantless entry.
However, courts do not necessarily need to evaluate exigent circumstances using Cruz/Dorman
analysis.
Federal Courts like that in Texas consider the urgency of a situation to warrant
warrantless entry. For instance, law enforcers make entry to protect evidence, put out fire and in
pursuing a fleeing suspect as well as helping seriously injured people. In addition, Federal Courts
find exigency by combining Cruz/Dorman factors with other possible factors. Non-Cruz/Dorman
factors such as volatile and dangerous situations, initiating the arrest of suspects in public places
and situations that pose danger to occupants may necessitate warrantless search, arrest or seizure.
There exist many Federal cases where Cruz/Dorman factors are mentioned bereft of a
Cruz/Dorman analysis. However, there flaws emerge when using Cruz/Dorman factors in most
exigent circumstances. Using Cruz/Dorman factors in evaluating exigent circumstances brings
forth two major issues. The first issue is inadequacy. Primarily, the inadequacies of these factors

Thomas - 8
arise from many obvious and recurring circumstances that demand urgency in police action. For
instance, where law enforces must be protected from harm or where possible evidence
destruction is foreseeable, warrantless entry may be necessary. These factors do not address such
situations since the Court in Dorman treated exigent circumstances as a distinct doctrine.
However, since Cruz/Dorman, most Federal Courts have realized that a situation such as
evidence destruction is an exigent circumstance subset. Principally, higher courts have failed to
address the vivid evolution of the jurisdiction of these exigent circumstances. As a result, this has
stymied develop of proper guidelines that help in understanding and analyzing exigent
circumstances, by the law enforcers and lower courts (Bergman, Paul and Sara 24).
The Cruz/Dorman factors do not encompass the contemporary emergencies. Law
enforcers find themselves in many situations that require them to act in order save lives and
properties. Secondly, these factors are inconsistent with the landmark Supreme Court decision in
the Payton v. New York (1980) case that restricts extent of warrantless entries. The Supreme
Court ruled that making arrest inside the home amounts to invading sanctity of that home.
Hence, it requires an exigent circumstance or a warrant. Making warrantless house entry without
probable cause and statutory authority translates to an exigent circumstance. The Supreme Court
decision underscored the relevance of warrant requirement particularly for non-consensual house
entries. The Eight Circuit treated the Cruz/Dorman factors as the ‘balancing test’ that strikes a
balance in maintenance of public order and protection of individual privacy right. The
Cruz/Dorman factors alone do not suffice the establishment of exigency. In exigent
circumstances, police must demonstrate urgency of need and show reasonable action.
For urgent need, a federal government like Texas must show that there existed no time to
obtain a warrant that they can demonstrate by showing hot pursuit, imminent evidence
destruction, danger of the law enforcer, likelihood of the suspect to escape et cetera. This
framework establishes a distinction between exigency test and reasonableness test. Separating
the tests is very consistent with the jurisprudence of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in
Payton v. New York (1980) case shows the necessity of exigent circumstances for warrantless
searches and seizures. However, the decision does not encompass the sufficiency of these
circumstances. A situation is exigent is that which requires urgent attention. During exigent
circumstances, urgent police action becomes necessary. Notably, reasonable conduct must
govern police action. The crimes’ gravity may be irrelevant in relation to whether to take

Thomas - 9
immediate action or not. By providing a separation between the reasonableness and exigency
test, the Court may tailor an intuitive and consistent framework for police officers and lower
courts.
Striking a balance between the reasonableness test and the exigency test can culminate to
suppression of incriminating evidence. The primary role of the two-pronged test is ensuring that
the only situation when suppression of evidence occurs when the urgency need does not permit
warrantless entry. If law enforcers believe that a probable cause exists, they should provide
evidence before a court as provided for by the Fourth Amendment. After this, the police should
file an application for either an arrest warrant or a seizure warrant. The increased bureaucracy
enhances the sanctity of a house. In addition, it prevents exception of exigent circumstance from
taking over the real of civilian-police interactions on home entry. In Texas, emergencies trigger
warrantless searches. The law enforcers must demonstrate a reasonable ground exists to ensure
that immediate action is necessary to save life and property. Most importantly, the search should
not be solely geared towards arresting the suspect and seizing evidence. Moreover, a probable
cause associating the area under search and the emergency must exist. Law enforcers are
community caretakers and not merely criminal investigators. Welfare and health concerns
involving the public amounts constitute a subset of the roles of the police. The emergency
exception occurs in the federal jurisprudence. Federal law takes cognizance of the fact that
caretaking functions must be separated from acquisition and detection of evidence (Rutledge,
55).
There are two distinctive frameworks relating exigent circumstances and emergency
situation. To begin with, they divide justifications that can either allow warrantless police search
into a defendant’s house. The other framework treats an emergency situations as a exigent
circumstance subset. In this framework, the circumstances that help in determining whether a
situation is volatile and dangerous or unreasonable risk can help in establishing an exigency. The
first framework is predicated upon the argument that law enforcers engage in crime fighting,
community caretaking, implicating an emergency and involve exigent circumstances. Some
Texas cases aligned along this framework establish the difference between exigency exceptions
from emergency exception. Other Texas cases have considered emergency as an exigency
circumstance subset. The first one permits a State to establish that warrantless entries can be
exigency under emergency situation principle and exigent circumstance principle. Ostensibly,

Thomas - 10
invalidating this provision, a higher trier-of-fact is required to find that emergency situation and
exigent circumstances.
The Fourth Amendment provides that seizures and searches in a man’s home devoid of a
warrant are unreasonable if none of the factors under the exigent circumstances is met.
Whenever law enforcers participate in warrantless entry, conduct a seizure or search, the
implication of the Fourth Amendment occurs. Upon implication, seizure or search becomes
unreasonable lest they are prompted by exigent circumstances. Whenever the emergency
situation occurs in the jurisdiction of the Fourth Amendment, they only allow warrantless entry
in the event of exigent circumstances. Police motivation such as protection of properties or lives
is irrelevant in determining the existence of exigent circumstances (Katz, Lewis and Neil, 89).
Hybrid analysis occurs when Cruz/Dorman factors are combined with possible danger to police
and bystanders’ lives in finding whether exigent circumstances existed to warrant police entry. In
many exigent circumstances where law enforcers proceed bereft of a warrant, a probable cause
linking the suspect to serious and grave crimes exists. The law enforcers must act reasonably. In
fact, the Fourth Amendment supports the reasonableness test. Combining the reasonableness,
subjective and objective test gives courts with a sound framework that helps in disposing of
circumstance where warrantless entry by police occurs when they play the role of caretakers.
The Fourth Amendment asserts that people’s rights are secured in their papers, houses
and persons against unwarranted seizures and searches. Despite the presumption, that law
enforcer’s entry in unlawful, federal and state have established exceptions to the rule. Exceptions
to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment exist. This is the exception under
exigent circumstances. In the States v. Rengifo case, the U.S. Court of Appeal, First Circuit held
that exigent circumstances arise when reasonable officers perceive delay to act to acquire a
warrant as frustrating the police objective like preventing evidence destruction. While the U.S.
Supreme provide a vivid guidance to police officers pertaining to circumstances where they can
make warrantless entry in a house to render emergency help, it does not address the question as
to whether exception of the exigent circumstances in the Fourth Amendment exist when the
actions of law enforcers culminate to exigency (Hall, 101). In the police-created exigency canon,
lower courts have held that police officers cannot rely on the exception if they create an exigency
that they want to justify action bereft of a warrant. On the other hand, other courts failed to see a
violation of the Fourth Amendment on the rationale that law enforcers established the exigency.

Thomas - 11
In the First Clause, the Fourth Amendment stipulates that unreasonable seizures and searches are
proscribed. In the Second Clause, the Fourth Amendment provides the prerequisites for valid
warrants.
Upon making determination of the importance and nature of immediate action, they
evaluate the extent that the action made an intrusion on an individual’s privacy interests. The
responsibility of police officers in the society has expanded. Today, law enforcers participate in
community caretaking. Navigation of the rule of warrantless seizures and searches as well as the
provisions of the Fourth Amendment entails an examination of case laws as opposed to statutes.
The modern principles stem from judicial evolution that has taken place over 200 years
(Hemmens et al 80-81). For example, the subjective intent of a police officer in stopping traffic
does not matter today. However, this subjective intent would have applied twenty-five years ago.
Unquestionably, state and federal law possess a decided premium for warrants. Having a warrant
enables the prosecutor or the police officer to draft an affidavit, which helps him/her in
discussing the facts in the case. The warrant is also important in designing a probable cause
statement with care. In addition, a warrant enables a magistrate to review the information
presented in court by either the prosecutor or the police officer prior to making a decision on
issuance of warrant. Whenever a case that involves a warrant is taken to court, the assumption is
that seizure, arrest or search was done within the law. The burden to proof deficiency of the
warrant falls on the victim. However, courts understand that oftentimes, it is not desirable or
practical to ask a police officer to halt what they are doing in order to obtain a warrant. For this
particular reason, state and federal constitutional law recognizes a number of exceptions to this
rule that requires police officers to obtain a search, arrest or seizure warrant.
There are two major exceptions envisaged in the state and federal constitutional law –
community caretaking and exigent circumstances. Comprehending the differences between these
two is very important as it plays an important role in determining whether a court will admit
evidence collected using a warrantless arrest, seizure or search. Notably, the role of the Fourth
Amendment is to protect people against unreasonable seizures and searches. For this reason, it
becomes paramount to explore the reasonableness of police officers’ actions. According to the
emergency doctrine, probable cause alongside exigent circumstances justifies warrantless
seizures and searches. The Code of Criminal Procedure in Article 14.05 encompasses a
provision, which permits law enforcers to enter a house bereft of any warrant under exigent

Thomas - 12
circumstances. Notably, exigent circumstances justify initial entry. However, since the role is to
secure safety or help a person in distress, upon containment of a crisis, it becomes unreasonable
to make further searching. The issuance of warrant authorizes further searching. Police officers
have the responsibility of securing the scene upon containment of the situation. The doctrine of
exigent circumstances does not encompass an exception of a murder scene that could sanction
unlimited search for houses. However, police officers can enter a house with the intent of
providing immediate aid or even search for a killer or other victims. Generally, the exception of
exigent circumstances is applied in those cases where police officers make warrantless entry as
opposed to a warrantless detention or stop. For this reason, this exception does not apply to
traffic stops. However, its relevance arises where a driver will flee the police, abandon his/her
vehicle and run into a building or a house. Police officers also apply the doctrine of exigent
circumstances when protecting lives. For instance, in the Warden v. Hayden case, the U.S.
Supreme Court argued that entering a home by police officers to pursue an armed burglar is okay
since failure to do so would put the lives of other people at risk (Lee 31-33).
Unlike the Federal law, Texas obliges officers to possess a warrant before making an
arrest. Moreover, they must show probable cause for any evidence to be admitted in court. While
exceptions for warrant requirement exist under the doctrine of exigent circumstances, there is
none for probable cause requirement. According to the Rules of Criminal Procedure is Texas, all
criminal processes begin with an arrest. After putting a suspect under restrain, police officers
make arrests. If a police officer were to restrain the liberty of suspect A, all reasonable people
think that this amounts to an arrest. This may not require an arrest warrant unlike full arrests that
require police officers to demonstrate probable cause. According to the test of totality of
circumstances, a probable cause does not exist. In Texas, for an affidavit to suffice issuance of a
warrant by a magistrate, there is need to present circumstances and facts that raises reasonable
belief to show that a defendant committed an offense. Moreover, the magistrate cannot factor in
oral statements that offenders make. The State produces a supporting affidavit and a warrant to
be inspected in a trial court. The general presumption is that all warrants are valid. According to
the judgment in the Cates v. State case, a defendant can file a motion intended to suppress
evidence obtained from an exigent circumstance if it involved contravention of the Fourth
Amendment.

Thomas - 13
An offender’s name may at times appear in a search warrant provided that the offender is
unknown and a sufficient description is provided. Information in a radio broadcast is important
in establishing probable cause. Under exigent circumstances, police officers do not need the
search warrant, whether the offender is known or not. The only thing they should possess is
critical and collaborated information commission of an offense. Law enforcers can make
warrantless searches and arrests during traffic stops. However, relying on the doctrine of ‘plain
view’ may culminate to evidence suppression in Court. According to the exclusionary rule in
Texas, evidence that law enforcers obtain in violation of laws cannot be admitted in a trial. In
addition, in most States, it is not mandatory to establish probable cause. However, police officers
in Texas must demonstrate probable cause whenever they decide to act reasonably in exigent
circumstances. This raises the bar for law enforcers who decide to make warrantless searches,
arrests and seizures (Hall 101-103). Fundamentally, the provisions of the Fourth Amendment
helps in safeguarding the interests of the public by ensuring that law enforcers do not violate
privacy rights in the guise of exigent circumstances.
According to Article 23.01 of the Criminal Procedure in Texas, a probable cause for
capias is necessary. As a writ that is issued by either a clerk or a court, a capias directs state
officers to arrest people accused of committing an offense and consequently take them to court
immediately. During such a situation, the state officer must show probable cause. A capias is
issued after indictment in a court where the offender is charged. In the Gerstein v. Pugh, it was
held that the determination of probable cause must take reasonable time. In Texas, the
constitutional requirement is 48 hours. Police officers must take cognizance of the fact that mere
presence in searched premises do not amount to proof of probable cause. For this reason,
evidence might still be suppressed if obtained in contravention of the provisions of the Fourth
Amendment.
The ‘may-break-door’ provision allows police officers to break down windows and doors
whenever they are denied entry. Police officers must state their authority to make an arrest
during exigent circumstances. The doctrine of ‘plain view’ allows police officers to seize
properties as evidence during a warrantless search and seizure. Presumptively, arresting a suspect
without an arrest warrant is invalid in Texas. However, peace officers can make arrests without
any warrant for offenses committed within his/her view or his/her presence as this satisfies the
requirements of the doctrine of ‘plain view.’ Such officers cannot make arrests for traffic

Thomas - 14
offenses. The decision in Knot v. State allowed a citizen to handcuff someone who threw a bottle
of beer at him as this amounted to breaching of peace. Therefore, peace officers can make
warrantless arrests during exigent circumstances too. They can also make warrantless arrests
when they find people in suspicious locations. Particularly, such warrantless arrests occur when a
police officer can demonstrate that indeed, a suspect is guilty of felony. Police officers in Texas
prefer lack of probable cause since they need a warrant upon confronting the suspect. Ostensibly,
the doctrine of inevitable discovery does not exist in Texas.
Under the Texas constitution and the Fourth Amendment, lack of exigent circumstances
suppresses evidence in a court. Where exigent circumstances are not existent, police officers
must establish them deliberately. In the Barocio v. State case, it was held that marijuana odor
does not offer probable cause to sanction a warrantless entry in Barocio’s house. In addition, in
the Petitioner v. Clifford J. Brown (1983), police officers stopped the automobile of the
respondent at night during a checkpoint of drivers’ licenses. After asking for the license, the
police officer shone flashlight on the automobile. The officer noted a party balloon knotted
around the tip falling from the hand of the respondent to his seat. The officer realized that the
balloon had narcotics packaged in the balloon. Consequently, the respondent was arrested after a
warrantless search was conducted (Batten, 56-58). A hearing was held a state-court trial where
the respondent was convicted after evidence suppression was denied. Upon appeal, the Court of
Criminal Appeals in Texas reversed the decision by arguing the evidence suppression was
necessary since evidence was obtained after the Fourth Amendment was violated. The court
rejected the doctrine of ‘pain view’ that justified seizure in the Coolidge v. New Hampshire case.
‘Plain view’ is not a sufficient justification of warrantless evidence seizure.
In most criminal justice systems, conducting a warrantless search or seizure is, per se,
unreasonable and a breach of individual privacy. For this reason, evidence gathered during
exigent circumstances may be inadmissible in court. As earlier mentioned, police officers do not
need to demonstrate probable cause for exigent circumstances in other States. However, police
officers in Texas must establish probable cause. In Ohio, the Fourth Amendment protects lawful
presence of police officers within an area. In the Ohio v. Cooper case, police officers
investigated a robbery. They found Cooper as the major suspect. Police officers knew that
Cooper has another arrest warrant issued for another different matter. They went to his home and
knocked the door. After answering the knock, the police officers arrested Cooper. Using the

Thomas - 15
doctrine of plain view, they seized a jacked that they thought was work by Cooper during the
robbery. Cooper sought to challenge the use of the jacket as evidence because the police officers
did not possess a warrant. The court held that the police officers lacked a justification for getting
into the house and therefore the jacket became inadmissible as evidence. In addition, the police
officers did not satisfy the reasonable test and the exigency test. In New York, evidence obtained
through warrantless searches and seizures may be inadmissible in court. The decision in Payton
v. New York (1980) demonstrates that warrantless searches and seizures are unacceptable lest
police officers demonstrate the existent of an exigent circumstance.
The Criminal Procedure and Practice in Canada provides for warrantless seizure and
search in exigent circumstances. During exigent circumstances, police officers are allowed to
forego the option of obtaining a warrant. Courts in Canada realize the necessity of circumventing
the legal provision that requires law enforcers to possess a search warrant or a seizure warrant
during circumstances that can cause immediate and serious harm. During exigent circumstances,
police officers must demonstrate the reasonableness that justifies lack of judicial authorization.
According to the Criminal Code s. 487.11, public officers and peace officers charged with the
responsibility of enforcing and administering provincial or federal laws can exercise the right to
make warrantless searches and seizures during exigent circumstances. Moreover, the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act allow peace officers to make warrantless searches whenever it is
impossible to acquire a warrant. Exigent circumstances where imminent disappearance or
destruction, loss and removal of evidence is a seizure or search is delayed. Put differently, police
officers can make permissible encroachment upon privacy rights. In the R v. Godoy (1999), it
was held that police officers could make warrantless seizures and searches when a 911 caller
appears to be distress. In the R. v. Feeney (1997), the Canadian Supreme Court held that police
officers require a warrant in order to enter a house with the intent of making an arrest lest the
suspect is on hot pursuit.
Probable cause is predicated upon what the enforcer dispatcher had as well as what the
law enforcer had. The informant remains anonymous. Establishing where the dispatcher obtained
information may be impossible. For this reason, police officers must take cognizance of this
reality. This necessitates the need to carry out police corroboration. The law allows a police
officer to handcuff one suspect and pursue the other according to the bright-line test. The
necessity of probable cause is beneficial for suspects during exigent circumstances. Ordinarily,

Thomas - 16
police officers are not allowed to make arrests without a warrant according to the Texas
Constitution. Exigent circumstances should pass the requirements of the Fourth Amendment
(Lee, 32). Failure to meet these requirements will compel law enforcers to create exigent
circumstances for warrantless seizures, arrests and searches. Upon creating an exigent
circumstance, police officers must obtain a warrant to make an arrest. Police officers should not
enter a house lest exigent circumstances exist. Put differently, exigent circumstances necessitate
non-consensual and warrantless entry. Where the Fourth Amendment is violated, a warrantless
arrest or seizure must be prompted by exigent circumstances or a probable cause.
The authority of police officers to make warrantless searches and seizures is beneficial in
many dimensions. Most importantly, the doctrine of exigent circumstances permits police
officers and other public officers to make warrantless seizures and searches. However, making
warrantless seizures, arrests and searches can culminate to unreasonable actions particularly for
police-created exigent circumstances. Preventive measures must be tailored towards limiting
police officers and other law enforcers from establishing exigent circumstances as this can
culminate to subversion of the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Differentiating
between police-created exigencies and actual exigent circumstances may become a tall order. In
the Kentucky v. King case, the U.S. Supreme Court quashed the doctrine of police-created
exigency.
People have unparalleled safety from unreasonable seizures and searches in their houses
according to the jurisprudence of the Fourth Amendment. Incoherent jurisprudence prevents
police officers and lower courts from comprehending their limitations and obligations. For this
reason, this research paper has demonstrated that an orderly and simple framework is essential in
weigh up warrantless entries occasioned by exigent circumstances. For exigent circumstances, a
State must demonstrate the existence of an exigency and satisfaction of the reasonableness test.
Not until these two are satisfied, evidence is inadmissible within a court. Pertaining to
emergency doctrine, courts must emergencies stemming from dangerous defendants from
emergency arising from circumstances not related to a defendant. Courts must treat emergencies
as exigent circumstances. Notably, courts should not depend on the motivation of law enforcers
in exigent circumstances since this is subjective. Courts should give premium to the
reasonableness test. The actions of police officers fall within the community caretaking function.
Hence, it falls beyond the Fourth Amendment’s scope.

Thomas - 17
Works Cited
Batten, Donna. Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Detroit, Mich: Gale, 2011. Internet
resource.
Bergman, Paul, and Sara J. Berman-Barrett. The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights,
Survive the System. Berkeley, CA: Nolo, 2003. Internet resource.
Daigle, Eric P. "Exigent Circumstances: What Is That?" Police Chief. 78.9 (2011). Print.
Katz, Lewis R, and Neil P. Cohen. Questions & Answers: Criminal Procedure I & Ii (police
Practices and Prosecution). New Providence, N.J: LexisNexis, 2009. Print.
Kessler, Jesse V. The Fourth Amendment: Select Issues and Cases. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova
Science Publishers, 2010. Internet resource.
Lee, Gregory D. Practical Criminal Evidence. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall,
2007. Print.
Hall, John W. Search and Seizure. Charlottesville, VA: LEXIS Law Pub, 2000. Print.
Hemmens, Craig, Alan Thompson, and Lisa S. Nored. Significant Cases in Criminal Procedure.
, 2013. Print.
Pettry, Michael T. The Exigent Circumstances Exception After Kentucky V. King. , 2012. Internet
resource.
Rutledge, Devallis. "Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion." Police (Carlsbad, Calif.). 35.6
(2011). Print.
Slobogin, Christopher. Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth
Amendment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Internet resource.