Code of Criminal Procedure · City v. Stuart
City v. Stuart
City v. Stuart is covered under City v. Stuart and tested on the TCOLE peace officer licensing exam. Cadets typically encounter this topic under "Search & Seizure" on practice exams.
To prove this offense, the State must establish each of the following elements: Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; Imminent destruction of evidence; Emergency aid / risk of death or serious injury; Officers must not have created the exigency through actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Elements you must prove
- Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon
- Imminent destruction of evidence
- Emergency aid / risk of death or serious injury
- Officers must not have created the exigency through actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment
Practice 1 question on this topic
Time yourself, score your run, review missed questions with statute references — Free Practice Pass cadets get limited access.
Worked examples
Worked example 1
Exigent circumstances permitting warrantless entry into a home generally include all of the following EXCEPT:
- Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon
- Imminent destruction of evidence
- Risk of death or serious injury (emergency aid)
- Officer's general curiosity about a residence Correct
Why: Exigent circumstances are an exception to the warrant requirement and include hot pursuit, imminent destruction of evidence, emergency aid, and risk to officer/community safety. Mere curiosity is never sufficient.
Statute: Brigham City v. Stuart; Kentucky v. King; Mincey v. Arizona