recognizing that “the restrictive requirement for a warrant is more likely to be retained, and the need for proceeding without a warrant found lacking, when the offense is what has been sometimes referred to as one of the ‘complacent’ crimes, like gambling”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “the restrictive requirement for a warrant is more likely to be retained, and the need for proceeding without a warrant found lacking, when the offense is what has been sometimes referred to as one of the ‘complacent’ crimes, like gambling”
- noting several factors — absent in this case— establishing sufficient exigency to justify war-rantless entry of a home, including whether "a grave offense is involved, particularly one that is a crime of violence,” a suspect is "reasonably believed to be armed,” and there is “a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended”
- suggesting that intrusion into the home without a warrant pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception should be supported by "not merely the minimum of probable cause, that is requisite even when a warrant has been issued, but beyond that a clear showing of probable cause"
- suggesting that intrusion into the home without a warrant pursuant to thé exigent circumstances exception should be supported by "not merely the minimum of probable cause, that is requisite even when a warrant has been issued, but beyond that a clear showing of probable cause”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring in the result).
I am inclined to agree with Judge Wright, infra, that the nighttime search of Dorman’s apartment was not exempted from the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement by Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). I need not reach this question, however, because I conclude that any error in admitting the fruit of this search was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). Almost from the time of the robbery itself, the evidence implicating Dorman was overwhelming (e. g., the abandoned probation papers and the eyewitness identifications). Just as this evidence reduced the need for Hat/dew-like pursuit of a fleeing, unknown suspect, it also establishes that any error here was harmless under Chapman . See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).