whether these circumstances were present, we must “analyze the situation from the perspective of the officer at the scene.” Leaf v. Shelnutt, 400 F.3d 1070, 1081 (7th Cir.2005). Here there existed a reasonable basis for the jury’s finding that exigent circumstances justified Idle’s entry into Sargent’s home. Idle testified that he followed Robert through the backdoor—not knowing whose house he was entering—for three reasons: (1) he needed to apprehend Robert, (2) he needed to preserve any evidence that Robert might have on his person, and (3) he needed to protect whomever might be inside from a known felon, with this reason “being well above the others.” Thus, Idle’s testimony established that well-recognized exigent circumstances were present. See, e.g., Lenoir, 318 F.3d at 730 (<HOLDING>). Although two of Sargent’s grandsons, who had
holding the fourth amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a routine felony arrest holding that arrest warrant can support entry into suspects residence when there is reason to believe the suspect is within holding that hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect justified a warrantless entry into the suspects home to protect inhabitants as long as the police did not know the home belonged to the suspect holding officers may seize any contraband that a fleeing suspect discards during flight because the suspect has abandoned the property holding that if a police officer inflicted no constitutional injury on a suspect it is inconceivable that the police commissioners could be liable to the suspect