SCOTUS Decision Limits Warrantless Entry for (Some) Fleeing Suspects

In a blow against law enforcement overreach, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that there are Fourth Amendment limits on chasing fleeing suspects who enter their homes. The decision of the court was unanimous, and the decision of California’s First District Court of Appeals was vacated. The case was remanded back to the US District Court for further review.

The background Lange vs. California

The defendant, Arthur Lange, was driving home in Sonoma, California in October 2016, “listening to loud music with his windows down and repeatedly honking his horn,” per the decision. The police officer, Aaron Weikert, turned on his overhead lights and indicated that Lange should pull over. Instead, Lange kept driving and eventually pulled into his own garage. He started to close the garage door when Weikert used his foot to stop the garage door from closing.

Weikert asked Lange if he knew that the officer was following him. Lange said no – he didn’t know. Weikert said he smelled alcohol on Lange’s breath and decided to charge Lange with a misdemeanor DUI offense, in addition to the loud noise offense which violated California Vehicle Code.

At the trial, Lange asserted that Weikert’s entry into his home (the garage) was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, because the officer didn’t have a warrant to enter the home. Lange also sought to suppress a video recording of the incident because the video violated Lange’s Fourth Amendment rights.

The trial court denied the motion to suppress the entry of the evidence (video and testimony) on the basis that the officer had probable cause (due to the alleged misdemeanor violation) to enter the home. Lange was convicted of the DUI charge and the driving while playing music at an excessive sound level charge. Lange appealed his convictions (he pleaded no contest due to the admission of the police officer’s evidence). After several court decisions, the California First District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions.

Lange’s license was suspended for one year by the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Lange filed a motion in civil court to overturn the license suspension. The civil court granted Lange’s motion on the basis that the arrest was illegal.

The 4th Amendment issue before the Supreme Court in this case

The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the public from unreasonable search and seizure. That is why this case was argued by the defense as a violation of Lange’s 4th Amendment rights.

The formal question presented to the Supreme Court, according to Justice Kagan, was “Whether the pursuit of a person whom a police officer has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor categorically qualifies as an exigent circumstance sufficient to allow the officer to enter a home without a warrant.”

Justice Kagan wrote:

The Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires that police officers get a warrant before entering a home without permission. But an officer may make a warrantless entry when ‘the exigencies of the situation’ create a compelling law enforcement need. Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011). The question presented here is whether the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect always—or more legally put, categorically—qualifies as an exigent circumstance. We hold it does not. A great many misdemeanor pursuits involve exigencies allowing warrantless entry. But whether a given one does so turns on the particular facts of the case.

Kagan reasoned that officers, when pursuing a misdemeanor suspect, must review all the circumstances to determine if there is indeed a law enforcement emergency. While many times, there may be a good reason – such as to prevent the destruction of evidence, to prevent physical harm/violence, or to prevent an escape – officers should obtain a warrant when there is time to get a warrant. Generally, it’s not that difficult or time-consuming to obtain a warrant. The officer, arguably, could have taken steps to obtain a warrant once he knew where the defendant lived.

The decision rejects the categorical/automatic ruling that all pursuits of fleeing misdemeanor suspects are emergencies/exigent. The case was sent back to the trial court to determine if indeed, there was a true emergency.

Justice Roberts’ concurring opinion seems to contradict his final ruling

Justice John Robert’s opinion agrees that there shouldn’t be categorical rules… and then essentially argues that virtually all people who flee on the suspicion they’ve committed a crime (whether it be a misdemeanor or a felony) create an exigent circumstance/emergency that justifies the officer’s entry into the defendant’s home.

Robert’s opinion states:

Hot pursuit is not merely a setting in which other exigent circumstances justifying warrantless entry might emerge. It is itself an exigent circumstance. And we have never held that whether an officer may enter a home to complete an arrest turns on what the fleeing individual was suspected of doing before he took off, let alone whether that offense would later be charged as a misdemeanor or felony. It is the flight, not the underlying offense, that has always been understood to justify the general rule: “Police officers may enter premises without a warrant when they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011). The Court errs by departing from that well-established rule.

At the Law Offices of Adrian H. Altshuler & Associates, our Franklin criminal defense lawyers assert every legal defense possible on your behalf. We regularly seek to suppress evidence in criminal cases when that evidence is obtained in violation of your Constitutional rights or Tennessee law. We’re not afraid to cross-examine police officers to show they could have obtained warrants to search your property or to videotape your actions.

If you’ve been arrested, it’s critical that you seek experienced legal counsel as soon as possible. To discuss your criminal charges, call our office at 615-977-9370 or fill out our contact form to schedule an appointment. We fight for defendants in and around Franklin, Columbia, and Brentwood.