466 U.S. 740 (1984)
On the rainy night of April 24, 1978, Randy Jablonic observed a car being driven erratically before it swerved off the road and stopped in an open field.1
Jablonic blocked the car with his truck and asked a passerby to call the police.2 The driver emerged from the vehicle, asked Jablonic for a ride home, and then walked away when Jablonic suggested waiting for assistance.3
A few minutes later police arrived and learned from Jablonic that the driver appeared very inebriated or sick.4 Checking the vehicle's registration, officers determined it belonged to Edward G. Welsh and that his residence was nearby.5 Without obtaining a warrant, the police proceeded to Welsh's home around 9 p.m., entered after the door was answered by his stepdaughter, and found Welsh naked in bed upstairs, where they arrested him for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant in violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1) (1977).6
Welsh was taken to the police station and refused a breath-analysis test.7 This led to two proceedings: one regarding his refusal to submit to testing, which could result in a 60-day license suspension if the refusal was deemed unreasonable, and another involving the underlying offense, which for a first offense was a civil violation punishable only by a fine.8
The trial court upheld the arrest, finding probable cause and exigent circumstances.9 After the refusal hearing, it suspended Welsh's license.10 The Wisconsin Court of Appeals vacated the suspension, holding the warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment due to lack of exigent circumstances.11 The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, identifying hot pursuit, public safety, and evidence preservation as exigent circumstances justifying the entry.12
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the Fourth Amendment implications of the warrantless home entry for the nonjailable offense.13
Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless nighttime home entry to arrest for a nonjailable traffic offense?14
The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless entries into a home for arrest absent probable cause and exigent circumstances.15 An important factor in the exigent-circumstances calculus is the gravity of the underlying offense.16 When that offense is minor, a warrantless home arrest is rarely justified.17
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that police made a warrantless nighttime entry into Edward G. Welsh's home to arrest him for a first-offense violation of Wis. Stat.
§ 346.63(1) (1977).18 Wisconsin classified that offense as a noncriminal civil forfeiture carrying a maximum fine of $200 and no possibility of imprisonment.19 Welsh had already left the accident scene and walked home before officers arrived.20 The only asserted exigency was the potential dissipation of blood-alcohol evidence.21
Because the offense was minor, the heavy burden required to overcome the presumption against warrantless home entries was not met.22
The Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless home entry and arrest on these facts.23
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Blackmun joined the majority but added a personal observation on the broader problem of drunk driving.24 He noted his own deep concern over highway deaths caused by intoxicated drivers.25 Blackmun observed that Wisconsin still treats a first offense of driving while intoxicated as only a civil violation carrying a maximum forfeiture of $300.26
He stated that if states choose by legislation to regulate their penalty structure in this indulgent manner, nothing in the United States Constitution prevents them from doing so.27 This classification limits the authority for warrantless home arrests even when the underlying conduct endangers the public.28
Justice White dissented on the merits and would have upheld the warrantless arrest.29 He argued that the gravity of the offense should not control the exigent-circumstances analysis under the Fourth Amendment.30 White maintained that the need to prevent imminent destruction of blood-alcohol evidence justified the warrantless entry even when the offense was classified as a civil violation.31
He emphasized that officers face practical difficulties in the field when deciding whether an offense is serious enough to permit a home entry.32
Whether exigent circumstances of hot pursuit, threat to public safety, or destruction of evidence justified the warrantless home entry and arrest in this case?33
Exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless home entry for arrest are narrowly drawn. Hot pursuit requires immediate and continuous pursuit from the scene of a crime.34 A threat to public safety must be immediate.35 The need to preserve evidence does not create an exigency when the underlying offense is only a minor civil violation.36
No. The established facts show there was no immediate or continuous pursuit of Welsh from the scene because he had already walked away and reached his home before police arrived.37 Welsh had abandoned his car, leaving little remaining threat to public safety.38 The only claimed exigency was the dissipation of blood-alcohol evidence for an offense that Wisconsin had classified as a noncriminal civil forfeiture with no jail time.39 These facts do not establish exigent circumstances sufficient to justify the warrantless entry.40
No exigent circumstances justified the warrantless home entry and arrest.41
Related opinions on this issue
Justice White would have found exigent circumstances on the facts of this case.42 He emphasized that the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops as the body eliminates it from the system.43 White noted that a suspect could cast substantial doubt on the validity of a blood or breath test by consuming additional alcohol upon arriving at his home.44
He concluded that the promptness with which the officers reached Welsh's house meant the need to prevent ongoing destruction of evidence of the traffic violation constituted a valid exigency justifying the warrantless in-home arrest.45