US Supreme Court

“ Thus, despite our emphasis in Welsh on the fact that the crime at issue was minor—indeed, a mere nonjailable civil offense—nothing in the opinion establishes that the seriousness of the crime is equally important in cases of hot pursuit. Third, even in the portion of Welsh cited by the Ninth Circuit below, our opinion is equivocal: We held not that warrantless entry to arrest a misdemeanant is never justified, but only that such entry should be rare. ”

“ The court held that the officers' entry required a warrant, in part because Smith was wanted for only misdemeanor offenses. Then, in a footnote, the court said: "In situations where an officer is truly in hot pursuit and the underlying offense is a felony, the Fourth Amendment usually yields [to law enforcement's interest in apprehending a fleeing suspect] . See [Santana, supra, at 42–43] . However, in situations where the underlying offense is only a misdemeanor, law enforcement must yield to the Fourth Amendment in all but the 'rarest' cases. Welsh, [supra, at 753] ." ”

“ It is so ordered. ↑ "Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any... peace officer... in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment... shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) , or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment." ”