In a hot pursuit scenario, standing in the doorway of a house is considered a public place for the purposes of the 4th Amendment, with no expectation of privacy. Which case is this description associated with?

In a hot pursuit scenario, standing in the doorway of a house is considered a public place for the purposes of the 4th Amendment, with no expectation of privacy. Which case is this description associated with?

• A. United States v Chadwick
• B. United States v Santana
• C. Carroll v United States
• D. Arizona v Grant

Answer: (A)

In Fourth Amendment analysis, the boundary between private space and the public world matters for privacy expectations. United States v. Santana addresses a hot-pursuit scenario where someone stands in the doorway of her house. The Court held that the doorway is part of the public domain—accessible to people on the street—so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy there. Because Santana was effectively in a public space at the threshold, police could lawfully arrest her there without a warrant when they had observed a drug transaction. This case establishes that the doorway to a home can be treated as public space for purposes of warrantless actions in hot-pursuit situations, without intruding into the interior privacy of the home.

In Fourth Amendment analysis, the boundary between private space and the public world matters for privacy expectations. United States v. Santana addresses a hot-pursuit scenario where someone stands in the doorway of her house. The Court held that the doorway is part of the public domain—accessible to people on the street—so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy there. Because Santana was effectively in a public space at the threshold, police could lawfully arrest her there without a warrant when they had observed a drug transaction. This case establishes that the doorway to a home can be treated as public space for purposes of warrantless actions in hot-pursuit situations, without intruding into the interior privacy of the home.