Which case is listed as the last item in the material and is associated with hot pursuit in the doorway context?

Which case is listed as the last item in the material and is associated with hot pursuit in the doorway context?

• A. Carroll v United States
• B. United States v Santana
• C. United States v Chadwick
• D. Chimel v California

Answer: (B)

This item tests how hot pursuit applies when the suspect is at the doorway of a dwelling. United States v. Santana directly addresses this doorway scenario: when police have probable cause to arrest someone for a crime (such as drugs) and the person is standing in the doorway of his home, officers may effect a warrantless arrest at that threshold without waiting for a warrant. The reasoning is practical—the arrestee could retreat into the dwelling, making the arrest difficult or impossible if officers had to step back and obtain a warrant. Because the doorway is the immediate point of contact where the suspect can be detained, the hot pursuit/exigent circumstances rationale supports arrest at that moment. The other listed cases deal with different Fourth Amendment issues instead of doorway hot pursuit: Carroll v United States concerns the automobile exception, Chimel v California covers searches incident to arrest, and United States v Chadwick deals with searches of luggage. So United States v Santana is the one that specifically covers hot pursuit in a doorway context.

This item tests how hot pursuit applies when the suspect is at the doorway of a dwelling. United States v. Santana directly addresses this doorway scenario: when police have probable cause to arrest someone for a crime (such as drugs) and the person is standing in the doorway of his home, officers may effect a warrantless arrest at that threshold without waiting for a warrant. The reasoning is practical—the arrestee could retreat into the dwelling, making the arrest difficult or impossible if officers had to step back and obtain a warrant. Because the doorway is the immediate point of contact where the suspect can be detained, the hot pursuit/exigent circumstances rationale supports arrest at that moment. The other listed cases deal with different Fourth Amendment issues instead of doorway hot pursuit: Carroll v United States concerns the automobile exception, Chimel v California covers searches incident to arrest, and United States v Chadwick deals with searches of luggage. So United States v Santana is the one that specifically covers hot pursuit in a doorway context.