Background
In February two thousand nineteen, North Las Vegas police officers responded to a domestic battery call. One officer witnessed a suspect flee over a backyard wall into a neighboring property. The officer drove to establish a perimeter, and the suspect was not seen for at least eighteen minutes. A K-9 unit was then deployed, and an officer entered the plaintiffs’ walled-in backyard to search for the suspect. During the search, the plaintiffs’ dogs attacked the police K-9, and the officer shot and killed two of them. The plaintiffs sued for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers and the city.
The court’s reasoning
The panel held that the hot pursuit exception only applies when officers are in immediate and continuous pursuit from the scene of the crime. Because the officers lost track of the suspect for at least eighteen minutes, the continuity of the chase was broken. The court relied on United States versus Johnson, noting that a warrant was required once the pursuit ended. The court found that the officers lacked an exigent circumstance to search the yard under clearly established law. Regarding the use of force against the dogs, the court distinguished the case from Hells Angels, noting the spontaneous nature of the confrontation and the lack of prior knowledge about the dogs. The court affirmed the city’s immunity because the plaintiffs failed to show a pattern of violations or deliberate indifference.
Today we conclude that a pursuit was at best lukewarm, and certainly no longer hot pursuit, when officers lost a suspect’s trail in a residential neighborhood for at least eighteen minutes.
Jones v. City of North Las Vegas, 150 F.4th 1030 (9th Cir. 2025)
The dissent
The panel’s decision in this case is a particularly egregious example of our stubborn adherence to this oft-condemned practice.
Johnnie B. Collins
What it means going forward
Police officers in the Ninth Circuit may no longer rely on the hot pursuit exception to enter private residences or yards if they lose sight of a suspect for an extended period, such as eighteen minutes, even if they establish a perimeter. This ruling limits the scope of warrantless searches in residential neighborhoods following a brief loss of a suspect’s trail.