State v. Taplette

¶1(dissenting).

¶2I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the evidence seized from defendant’s apartment should be suppressed. I believe the warrantless search fell under the “hot pursuit” exception of Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). The police knew that defendant was armed, that he had fired at a police officer and fled the scene. A short time later, they were told he had entered an apartment and was not seen leaving. Under these circumstances, “[t]he Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.” Hayden, supra.

¶3Furthermore, even if the trial court erred in admitting the gun into evidence, I believe the error was harmless. Even without the introduction of the gun, there was substantial evidence showing defendant fired at Officer Beckemeyer. Defendant’s *989conviction did not hinge on the introduction of the gun.

¶4Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

¶5dissenting.

¶6The police, after Officer Beckemeyer lost defendant in pursuit, determined from a bar patron sketchy information as to the address of defendant’s nearby residence. Upon approaching the residence, a bystander informed police that defendant lived in the upstairs rear apartment, and that he had seen defendant enter the apartment twenty minutes earlier and had not seen him leave.

¶7The police clearly had probable cause to arrest defendant. The critical issue involves the existence of exigent circumstances. Defendant was armed and had just violently attacked a woman at the bar before shooting five times at a police officer. There was clearly an urgent need to apprehend defendant immediately before he secured additional bullets and redirected his violent rage against the woman, the police officer, or other citizens. Under these exigent circumstances it was entirely reasonable for the police to enter defendant’s apartment without a warrant in order to effect an immediate arrest.

¶8Furthermore, any error by the trial court in refusing the suppress admission of the gun was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant took the stand and admitted he fired five shots outside the bar (claiming he shot into the air).1 Both Officer Beckemeyer and the barmaid testified that defendant aimed the gun at Beckemeyer when he fired the five shots and that one shot hit the van parked just beyond Beckemeyer in defendant’s line of fire. A slug was found in the parked van shortly after the incident. The fact that this slug was matched to the gun seized in defendant’s home was “icing on the cake”, but one can hardly conclude there was a reasonable possibility that introduction of the gun might have contributed to the conviction. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La.1980).