Name three exigent circumstances that justify a warrantless search.

Name three exigent circumstances that justify a warrantless search.

• A. Hot pursuit, imminent danger, and imminent destruction of evidence.
• B. Routine traffic stop, weather delay, and noncompliance.
• C. Consent from occupant, search after arrest, and a scare tactic.
• D. A warrant obtained in advance, a stray observation, and a rumor.

Answer: (A)

Exigent circumstances are situations where police can conduct a warrantless search or seizure because waiting for a warrant would be impractical and could create danger or cause the loss of evidence. The three classic examples are hot pursuit, imminent danger, and imminent destruction of evidence. Hot pursuit means officers are actively chasing a suspect who is trying to avoid arrest, and they may enter buildings or other areas without a warrant to prevent escape. Imminent danger covers scenarios where there is an immediate threat to someone's life or safety, requiring quick action. Imminent destruction of evidence applies when evidence could be quickly destroyed unless police act right away, such as flushing drugs down a drain or burning contraband. Other options don’t fit because routine traffic stops, weather delays, or noncompliance aren’t exigent circumstances; consent from an occupant is a separate basis for a warrantless search; a search incident to arrest is a different lawful rule; a “scare tactic” isn’t a valid justification; and obtaining a warrant in advance is the opposite of warrantless action.

Exigent circumstances are situations where police can conduct a warrantless search or seizure because waiting for a warrant would be impractical and could create danger or cause the loss of evidence. The three classic examples are hot pursuit, imminent danger, and imminent destruction of evidence.

Hot pursuit means officers are actively chasing a suspect who is trying to avoid arrest, and they may enter buildings or other areas without a warrant to prevent escape. Imminent danger covers scenarios where there is an immediate threat to someone's life or safety, requiring quick action. Imminent destruction of evidence applies when evidence could be quickly destroyed unless police act right away, such as flushing drugs down a drain or burning contraband.

Other options don’t fit because routine traffic stops, weather delays, or noncompliance aren’t exigent circumstances; consent from an occupant is a separate basis for a warrantless search; a search incident to arrest is a different lawful rule; a “scare tactic” isn’t a valid justification; and obtaining a warrant in advance is the opposite of warrantless action.