Also known as: immediate pursuits · hot pursuit
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A circumstance in which a victim immediately chases a thief to recover property. In robbery law the defendant satisfies the force element by using force or threats to prevent that immediate chase or prompt recovery of the property.
Isla Ireland slipped Ivy Ibarra's headphones into her bag in the arena locker room and walked away. Ivy caught up within seconds and reached into the bag. Isla shoved Ivy against the wall to keep the headphones and continue walking. The shove occurred while Ivy was in immediate pursuit to recover the property.
Ismael Ibrahim took property on the street. He fled into a nearby house. The owner followed him inside and used nondeadly force to recover the property. The force was justified because the owner was in immediate pursuit of the thief who had retreated from a public place.
Idris Ives took property after committing a felony. He fled into a dwelling. The owner pursued him inside and used nondeadly force to recover the property and ensure safety. The force was permissible because the owner was in immediate pursuit of the fleeing thief.
Isaiah Ishikawa took property and ran from the owner after committing the taking. The owner stopped him on the street and used nondeadly force to recover the property. The force was reasonable because the owner was acting during the immediate pursuit that formed part of the continuous transaction.
On October 31, 1963, Cleveland police detective Martin McFadden, a 39-year veteran assigned to downtown Cleveland for 30 years, observed John W. Terry and Richard Chilton standing on the corner of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue. McFadden took up a post of observation 300 to 400 feet away. He watched as the two men walked back and forth along Huron Road, pausing repeatedly to look in the window of a store before conferring with each other. This pattern repeated roughly a dozen times over ten to twelve minutes. A third man, Katz, joined them briefly before departing, after which Terry and Chilton followed the same path. By this time McFadden had become thoroughly suspicious that the men were casing the store for a robbery and feared they might be armed. McFadden approached the three men in front of Zucker's store, identified himself as a police officer, and asked their names. When they mumbled responses, he grabbed Terry, spun him around, patted down the outer clothing of his overcoat, and felt a pistol in the left breast pocket. He removed a .38-caliber revolver from Terry's pocket and ordered the men into the store, where he similarly frisked Chilton and discovered another revolver while finding no weapons on Katz. Terry and Chilton were arrested and charged with carrying concealed weapons. Prior to trial they moved to suppress the revolvers as the product of an unlawful search. The trial court denied the motion after hearing McFadden's testimony, finding that the officer had reasonable cause to believe the defendants were acting suspiciously and that the frisk was necessary for his protection. After the denial, Terry and Chilton waived jury trial, were convicted, and sentenced to one to three years in the penitentiary. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeal, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseYes. At common law the force or threat element is met when the defendant uses force to retain possession immediately after the taking, including force used to prevent the victim's immediate pursuit or prompt recovery of the property.
The pursuit must be prompt enough to form part of a continuous transaction. Minutes between the taking and the confrontation satisfy the requirement when the victim immediately notices the loss and confronts the thief.
Yes. A threat made immediately after the taking to prevent recovery or pursuit satisfies the intimidation element because it is used to retain possession as part of the same continuous transaction.
…the warrant requirement can only be excused by exigent circumstances, see, e. g. , Warden v. Hayden , 387 U. S. 294 (1967) (hot pursuit); cf. Preston v. United States , 376 U. S. 364, 367-368 (1964). But we deal here with an entire rubric of police conduct—necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot…