Also known as: immediate pursuits · hot pursuit
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see 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.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
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.
Yes. 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…