# Respondents Brief — Welsh v. Wisconsin > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385010_1316%3A06 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Respondents Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1984 - **Citation:** 466 U.S. 740 ## Text Case No. 82-5466 j IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term 1982 EDWARD G. WELSH, Petitioner, U. STATE OF WISCONSIN, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN BRIEF OF RESPONDENT BRONSON C. LA FOLLETTE Attorney General of Wisconsin STEPHEN W. KLEINMAIER Assistant Attorney General of Wisconsin Attorneys for Respondent. Department of Justice Post Office Box 7857 Madison, Wisconsin 53707 (608) 266-1677 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..................06. l SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACTS....... 4 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..................0000: 6 SE es ceo dd lc abEen tech 144400 4 bN baie cieeake 7 I. The Defendant Was Arrested For The Misdemeanor Offense Of Operating A Motor Vehicle While Under The Influence Of An Intoxi- (SE pea a ay a Sy 7 II. Whether The Defendant Was Ar- rested For A Misdemeanor Or A Forfeiture Offense, The Arrest Was Valid If The Police Had Prob- able Cause To Believe He Com- mitted The Offense Of Drunk Driving And Exigent Circum- stances Existed To Justify Their Failure To Obtain A Warrant ....... 12 A. The common law rules of arrest were not made part of the constitu- tion by the adoption of the fourth I es roe eee tees 15 B. Even if the common law rules of arrest were adopted as part of the United States Constitution, the arrest of the defendant was valid because drunk driving qualifies as a felony under the eighth amend- SORE TE 5 io Sills Cdl dan oc gists kieee 25 III. IV. VI. CONCLUSION i C. Evenif the United States Constitu- tion adopted the common law rules of arrest, and even if the labels placed on the offenses by the local legislatures are controlling, the arrest in the instant case was Ce es ea a gs eee di so At The Time Of The Arrest, The Police Possessed Probable Cause To Arrest The Petitioner For The Offense Of Operating A Motor Vehicle While Under The Influence Of An Intoxi- Se ca alrns oF ieee ede hs te hoes caw ees Exigent Circumstances Existed To Justify The Warrantless Arrest Of the Defendant. ................ A. Hot pursuit ................ eats B. Theimminent threat to safety. ... C. Prevention of the destruction of ERIE Bigey SPREE See This Court Should Not Require The Police To Seek A Telephone Warrant Before Entering The Defendant’s Home To Arrest Him. ... A Decision Invalidating The Entry Into The Defendant’s Home Would Hamper Effective Law Enforce- SE Ah s bead ccabe spac beats cu bibas « “eee eee eee eee eee eee Page .. 29 ss .. 36 44 ‘oa ill Page CASES CITED Aliff v. State, 627 S.W.2d 166 oe 8 Re ee ero 39 Argersinger v. Hamlin, Be es CTs on kavavs daveeesss vaun bee 18 Bad Elk v. United States, Er Se I cs ik cevesdeusaccanceeences ane 24 Baldwin v. New York, Be SITE so voc avevenewasednned apenas 27 Boyd v. United States, Be CEE ook con aevduccatbavacseeeeane 32-33 Breithaupt v. Abram, SE UE, GIB oie be nccccedinuticdedcereutes 28 Brown v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 86 Cal. App. 3d 357, ope Bo Sh ek rere ee 43 Camara v. Municipal Court, ee GA ETD inners acvsvecrdiete 30,31,32,40,41 Carroll v. United States, ) Re a EEE bss da ccccagcievdcnenawee Gane 18 City of Columbus v. Herrell, 18 Ohio App. 2d 149, ee ee FH CRUD vk cca ccvevescecseveseneae 23 Commonwealth v. Levesque, 469 Pa. 118, RED o.oo onc cddsueeeSecess cabana 23 Cemmonwealth v. Trefry, . 249 Pa. Super. 117, a SEINE hive ba bessvaus chaaauens 38,41,43 iv County of Walworth v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713, CRONIES , oc tcc ccccccvccccvcces 9,26 DeVaney v. State, 259 Ind. 483, ME CPCB) 5. .ccccccccccccsvcccvece 38,43 Diamond v. Marland, 395 F. Supp. 432 (S.D. Ga. 1975) ................ 23 Duncan v. Louisiana, ee ces seueeceveeee 27 Gregg v. State, OE) 38 Hayes v. State, 634 S.W.2d 359 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)............. 38 In the Matter of Gardner, 39 N.C. App. 567, RIND ccc o cc ccccccevevececce 23 Johnson v. United States, EE 38 Ker v.California, Tee pee eseseseees 25 Klingler v. United States, S00 F.20 300 (Oth Cir. 1068)..........cccccceeees 25 Mackey v. Montrym, ET 26-27,40,41,42 McDonald v. United States, Teen tees esececvescecs 38 Michigan v. Tyler, ccc ceceseevedeeve 38 Noble State Bank v. Haskell, aes dc pele vo beds cuevns 21 North American Cold Storage Company v. City of Chicago, ce oa ne nauwe 6 eels 40 One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, ee ee ER ahd cave kcncs veces ciuatunse