This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 9 -
circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” Payton v. New
York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980). Generally, “searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant
are presumptively unreasonable.” Ross v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 752, 759 (2013) (quoting
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459 (2011)). This “presumption may be overcome” when “the
warrant requirement is subject to certain reasonable exceptions.” Id.
Pearson contends that his attempt to arrest Berry in his apartment, without a warrant, does
not violate these well settled principles. In support of this assertion, Pearson first contends that
probable cause existed permitting him to arrest Berry for a misdemeanor committed in Pearson’s
presence. We need not decide if there was in fact probable cause justifying an arrest, because even
if there was, as discussed below, Pearson’s entry into Berry’s home to make the arrest violated the
Fourth Amendment.
Pearson then further contends that this case is similar to and governed by United States v.
Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976). In Santana, officers went to Santana’s home to arrest her for
distributing heroin. Id. at 40. Officers already had probable cause to arrest her for a felony before
their arrival at the home. Id. Upon arrival at the house, officers “saw Santana standing in the
doorway of” her home “with a brown paper bag in her hand.” Id. “They pulled up to within 15 feet
of Santana” before exiting their van and “shouting ‘police,’ and displaying their identification.” Id.
The defendant withdrew into her home. Id. Officers pursued her into the vestibule of her home,
where they caught and arrested her. Id.
Santana challenged her arrest under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court reasoned
that even though “it may be true that under the common law of property the threshold of one’s
dwelling is ‘private,’ as is the yard surrounding the house, it is nonetheless clear that under the cases
interpreting the Fourth Amendment Santana was in a ‘public’ place.” Id. at 42. “She was not in an
area where she had any expectation of privacy,” because ‘“[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to Jump to an indexed page (18 of 18)