MADISON - When does police activity become a hot pursuit, eliminating the need for a warrant to enter a private

residence?

That is the question the Wisconsin state Supreme Court takes up Wednesday when it reviews a Court of Appeals reversal of a conviction of a Racine man in 2005.

The state's highest court is expected to clarify the hot pursuit doctrine. The doctrine permits law enforcement to enter private residences under certain circumstances without a warrant. The court will decide if the doctrine applies only in situations involving serious felonies, or whether misdemeanor offenses also apply, according to a court summary of cases for the week.

The question stems from a case in which Racine police went to Dwight M. Sanders' home on May 6, 2005, after someone reported him abusing his dogs. Police found Sanders in the yard with several pit bulls who did not appear to be mistreated. They asked for identification, which he refused to supply.

Officers noticed a wad of cash and a beef jerky canister in Sanders' hands and ultimately chased him into his home, believing the canister contained drugs. Officers later found a small amount of cocaine in the canister and Sanders was charged with obstructing an officer and possession of cocaine.

Sanders pleaded no contest to the cocaine charge and in October 2005 was sentenced to serve 18 months in prison and 18 months extended supervision. He was released in October 2006.

Sanders appealed his conviction, and the District 2 Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, saying Racine County Circuit Judge Dennis Barry was mistaken when he refused to dismiss the drug evidence.

Sanders argued the officers could not enter his home without a warrant because they were pursuing him for a misdemeanor offense - obstruction of an officer - and not the felony drug crime.

The state said officers believed Sanders was involved in drug activity after seeing the money and canister, and they went into his home in "hot pursuit."

The appeals court said officers could have had reasonable suspicion, but that the situation did not meet the probable cause threshold, which is what would have allowed them to enter his home without a warrant.

Racine's hot pursuit policy not specific

RACINE - Because of the multitude of variables that come into play when officers are chasing an individual, the Racine Police Department does not have a specific policy that addresses the use of hot pursuit.

If an officer is chasing someone that is believed to have been involved in a felony, they will follow them into a location or secure a location so that a warrant can be issued, according to Sgt. Michael Polzin, the department's public information officer.

"Oftentimes we get guys that go into an open door anywhere when we are chasing them. We don't know if that is the person's place of residence or if it was the first open door or the first opportunity that they saw," he said. "It obviously involves some quick decision making based on the totality of the circumstances."

Polzin indicated that questions pertaining to the legality of hot pursuit typically relate to the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which deals with search and seizure. Officers must make decisions based upon the presence of exigent circumstances, most notably public safety being compromised and the probability that evidence will be destroyed while a search warrant is being obtained, Polzin wrote in an e-mail.

"If a guy is involved in street level drugs and you end up in a foot chase with them and they in fact run into a residence and you wait for a search warrant to be drafted and executed, there is a great likelihood that evidence that you hope to recover will be destroyed by the time you are able execute that search warrant," he said.