Exigent circumstances justified pursuit and entry into a fleeing felon’s home without a warrant

People v. Valencia (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 10, 2026, No. B338672) 2026 WL 672932, at *1

Summary: Valencia, under the influence of methamphetamine and cocaine, drove his pickup truck and would not comply with police orders to pull over. Police chased Valencia until he crashed into a parked car. Valencia jumped out, ran to his nearby apartment, and barricaded himself in his bedroom. During an overnight standoff, Valencia shot one officer to death and seriously wound another. A SWAT team eventually blew through his bedroom wall and blasted down his bedroom door. The jury convicted Valencia of murder and other felonies.

Valencia appealed challenging the warrantless entry of police into his apartment. The Court of Appeal held that jurors could find exigent circumstances justified the initial warrantless entry and that police did not need to seek a warrant once they were in the apartment.

The Court rejected Valencia’s claim that, because he fired only six rounds, he could be convicted of only six crimes.

The prosecution charged Valencia with 10 felonies: the murder of Casillas, four counts of attempted murder, three counts of assault, and one count each of gun possession and reckless flight. The prosecution’s theory was the attempted murder victims were the officers closest to the door and the shooting. The  assault victims were those behind them but still in the line of fire.

The prosecution also alleged each victim of the murder and attempted murders was a peace officer engaged in the performance of duty. These “performance of duty” allegations are relevant on appeal because Valencia argues the police were not on lawful duty because they entered his apartment without a warrant.

Valencia’s argued that his arrest was not lawful because officers entered his apartment without a warrant.

The “lawful duty” allegations were as follows. CALCRIM No. 724 explained the allegation charging that the murder of Casillas was of an officer “lawfully performing” his duties. CALCRIM No. 602 set forth the allied allegations that the attempted murder and assault victims were officers “lawfully performing” their official duties.

The second type of allegation concerned “lawful arrest.” This “lawful arrest” allegation concerned only the charged murder of Casillas. The court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 723, which explained Valencia was charged with the special circumstance of murder committed to prevent arrest in violation of section 190.2(a)(5). To prove this special circumstance was true, the prosecution had to prove that Valencia committed the murder to avoid or prevent a “lawful arrest.”

Jurors could find the warrantless entry was proper.

Police had ample justification for their hot pursuit of a felon and their hot pursuit justified their warrantless entry. Once inside Valencia’s apartment, law enforcement was not required to seek a warrant to authorize their effort to end the standoff.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects Americans against unreasonable police searches and seizures in their homes. An exception to the requirement for a warrant is for exigent circumstances, which arise when the situation makes the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable.

Courts generally apply the exigent-circumstances exception on a case-by-case basis.

Hot pursuit can justify warrantless entry, but not always. Here, jurors could find police did not need a warrant to enter Valencia’s apartment. Officers witnessed him commit a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2 by driving recklessly to evade pursuing police.

The officers were justified in continuing their pursuit of Valencia through the front door of his apartment in an effort to arrest him before his metabolism eliminated evidence of intoxicated driving.

Exigent circumstances justified police entry through the apartment door.

Once inside, police were not required to interrupt their efforts to seek a warrant. The Fourth Amendment did not require them periodically to reassess whether the exigency persisted throughout the standoff.

The number of convictions need not equal or be fewer than the number of shots fired. This crime can be complete without any fired bullets. Merely pointing a gun can suffice. Indeed, one need not point at the victim. It can be enough that defendants bring a gun into a position where they could have used it against the victim.

Moreover, trial court properly instructed the jury that CALCRIM No. 860 does not list among the elements of assault with a firearm the requirement that the defendant fired a gun.

Assault with a firearm does not require any shots fired. The law contains no formula linking the number of convictions to the number of fired bullets.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.