DUI -- Can officers enter homes chasing drunks?

First -- the United States Supreme Court over 20 years ago said that an officer could not enter premises under the "exigency" doctrine simply because the suspect's BAC might dissipate. (WELSH V WISCONSIN) The Court held that DUI / DWI was not a serious enough offense to permit such entries.

Recently -- courts around the country have begun to recognize the serious nature of DUI -- and are beginning to permit the entry of homes to arrest drunk drivers -- particularly when the officers are in "hot" pursuit.

Very recently, in People v Wear, for example, a suspected drunk disregarded an officers' orders to stop, by emergency equipment -- and entered his home despite the officer's verbal commands to stop.

When the officer got to the front door, he had to deal with a female at the door. Wear, who stood behind the female, continued to proclaim that he was home (implying that the officer could not get him).

The officer could see that Wear showed many signs of being DUI at that point -- and entered the home to arrest Wear. Wear refused tests.

The Illinois Court of Appeals ruled that the officer had probable cause for DUI (and eluding) -- and that the officer was in hot pursuit.

The court in so ruling stated that, unlike 20 years ago, DUI is now a very serious crime which should permit entry under the hot pursuit doctrine.

PS In a recent state supreme court case (State v Legg in Iowa) the court stated that if we let a drunk get off just because she makes it to her garage, what are we telling drunk in every bar in this state at 2:00 a.m.?? (for me this is a great argument in any state court.)

Warning -- I do not believe a court is going to permit entry without some sign(s?) of DUI. a simple traffic offense will probably not be sufficient even if the driver is drunk.

Important Note -- the court in Wear noted that probably on summary suspension the 4th Amendment should NOT apply anyway as that is an administrative / civil -- not a criminal -- proceeding...