427 U.S. 38 (1976)
On August 16, 1974, Michael Gilletti, an undercover officer with the Philadelphia Narcotics Squad, arranged a heroin buy with Patricia McCafferty, from whom he had purchased narcotics before.1
McCafferty told him it would cost $115 and we will go down to Mom Santana's for the dope.2 Gilletti notified his superiors of the impending transaction, recorded the serial numbers of $110 in marked bills, and went to meet McCafferty at a prearranged location.3 She got in his car and directed him to drive to 2311 North Fifth Street, which was respondent Santana's residence.4
McCafferty took the money and went inside the house, stopping briefly to speak to respondent Alejandro who was sitting on the front steps.5 She came out shortly afterwards and got into the car.6 Gilletti asked for the heroin; she thereupon extracted from her bra several glassine envelopes containing a brownish-white powder and gave them to him.7 Gilletti then stopped the car, displayed his badge, and placed McCafferty under arrest.8 He told her that the police were going back to 2311 North Fifth Street and that he wanted to know where the money was.9 She said, Mom has the money.10 At this point Sergeant Pruitt and other officers came up to the car.11
Pruitt and the others then drove approximately two blocks back to 2311 North Fifth Street.12 They saw Santana standing in the doorway of the house with a brown paper bag in her hand.13 They pulled up to within 15 feet of Santana and got out of their van, shouting police, and displaying their identification.14 As the officers approached, Santana retreated into the vestibule of her house.15 The officers followed through the open door, catching her in the vestibule.16 As she tried to pull away, the bag tilted and two bundles of glazed paper packets with a white powder fell to the floor.17 Respondent Alejandro tried to make off with the dropped envelopes but was forcibly restrained.18 When Santana was told to empty her pockets she produced $135, $70 of which could be identified as Gilletti's marked money.19 The white powder in the bag was later determined to be heroin.20
An indictment was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania charging McCafferty with distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and respondents with possession of heroin with intent to distribute in violation of the same section.21 McCafferty pleaded guilty.22 Santana and Alejandro moved to suppress the heroin and money found during and after their arrests.23 The District Court granted respondents' motion in an oral opinion finding strong probable cause that Santana had participated in the transaction but concluding that either an arrest warrant or a search warrant was required.24 The court rejected any hot pursuit justification because the events did not involve a chase in and about public streets.25 The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision without opinion.26
Whether Santana was in a public place when the officers first sought to arrest her?27
Yes. When the officers first sought to arrest Santana she was standing in the doorway of her house with a brown paper bag in her hand.30 In that position she was not in an area where she had any expectation of privacy.31 She was as exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her house.32
The officers had probable cause from McCafferty's statements identifying Mom Santana as the source of the heroin and the marked money.33
Santana was in a public place when the officers first sought to arrest her.34
Related opinions on this issue
It is not disputed here that the officers had probable cause to arrest Santana and to believe that she was in the house.35 In these circumstances a warrant was not required to enter the house to make the arrest at least where entry by force was not required.36 This has been the longstanding statutory or judicial rule in the majority of jurisdictions in the United States and has been deemed consistent with state constitutions as well as the Fourth Amendment.37
Whether Santana's retreat into her house could prevent the officers from completing an arrest that had been initiated in a public place?38
Yes. Santana's act of retreating into the vestibule of her house after the officers shouted police and approached within fifteen feet could not thwart the arrest.41 The officers were engaged in a true hot pursuit that began in a public place.42 The need to act quickly was even greater than in cases involving armed robbers who had entered a house minutes earlier.43
Once Santana saw the police there was a realistic expectation that any delay would result in destruction of evidence.44
Santana's retreat into her house could not prevent the officers from completing the arrest.45
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Stewart
When Officer Gilletti placed McCafferty under arrest the police had sufficient information to obtain a warrant for the arrest of Santana in her home.46 The decision not to obtain a warrant was justified by the significant risk that the marked money would no longer be in Santana's possession if the police waited until a warrant could be obtained.47 The failure to seek a warrant was harmless because it would have been proper to keep the Santana residence under surveillance while the warrant was being sought.48
Whether the warrantless entry into the house and the subsequent search were justified?49
Yes. The officers followed Santana through the open door into the vestibule in hot pursuit after she retreated upon seeing them approach and shout police.52 Once she had been arrested the search incident to that arrest which produced the drugs and money was clearly justified.53 The District Court correctly concluded that hot pursuit means some sort of a chase but it need not be an extended hue and cry in and about the public streets.54
The warrantless entry into the house and the subsequent search were justified.55
Related opinions on this issue
Mr. Justice Stevens focuses on what I believe to be the right question in this case — whether there were exigent circumstances.56 He reaches an affirmative answer because he finds a significant risk that the marked money would no longer be in Santana's possession if the police waited until a warrant could be obtained.57 I agree that there were exigent circumstances in this case.58
McCafferty was arrested a block and a half down the street from Santana's home.59 One officer testified that the word would have been back within a matter of seconds or minutes.60 The danger that the evidence would be destroyed and the suspects gone before a warrant could be obtained would ordinarily justify the police's quick return to Santana's home and the warrantless entry and arrest.61
However, the exigency that justified the entry and arrest was solely a product of police conduct.62 Had Officer Gilletti driven McCafferty to a more remote location before arresting her, it appears that no exigency would have been created by the arrest.63 In such an event a warrant would have been necessary before Santana could have been arrested.64
I would remand this case for consideration of whether the police decision to arrest McCafferty a block and a half from Santana's home was for the sole purpose of creating the exigent circumstances that otherwise would justify Santana's subsequent arrest.65