Lange v. California
594 U. S. ____ (2021) (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not create a categorical rule allowing police to enter a home without a warrant. Courts must instead evaluate the totality of the circumstances in each case to determine whether an exigency, such as the imminent destruction of evidence, a threat of violence, or a suspect's escape, justifies a warrantless entry.
Facts:
- Arthur Lange was driving his car while playing loud music and repeatedly honking his horn.
- A California highway patrol officer observed Lange's actions and began following him.
- The officer activated his overhead lights to signal Lange to pull over.
- Lange, who was approximately 100 feet from his residence, did not stop and instead drove into his attached garage.
- The officer followed Lange into the garage without obtaining a warrant.
- Once inside, the officer questioned Lange and observed signs of intoxication.
- The officer administered field sobriety tests, and a subsequent blood test revealed Lange's blood-alcohol content was over three times the legal limit.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of California charged Arthur Lange in the Superior Court of California with misdemeanor driving under the influence and a noise infraction.
- Lange filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry into his garage, which the trial court denied.
- The appellate division of the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's denial.
- Lange, as appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, which affirmed the lower court's decision.
- The California Supreme Court denied Lange's petition for review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Lange's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances exception categorically permit a police officer to make a warrantless entry into a home when in hot pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kagan
No. The pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless home entry. The Fourth Amendment's protection of the home requires a case-by-case assessment of whether the circumstances of a particular pursuit create a genuine law enforcement emergency. While the flight itself is a factor, it is not dispositive. Exigencies may include the need to prevent imminent injury, the destruction of evidence, or a suspect's escape from the home. Because misdemeanors range widely in seriousness, not every case of a fleeing misdemeanant will present a 'compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.' This approach aligns with the Court's precedent in Welsh v. Wisconsin, which emphasized that the gravity of the underlying offense is a key factor, and with the common law, which did not support a blanket rule for misdemeanor pursuits.
Concurring in the judgment - Chief Justice Roberts
No. Although the California court’s categorical rule should be vacated, the majority’s case-by-case approach is incorrect and unworkable. The act of fleeing from police is itself an exigent circumstance that justifies warrantless entry. Hot pursuit is not merely a setting for other exigencies; it is the exigency. This established rule provides clear guidance to law enforcement and recognizes the serious public safety interests implicated whenever a suspect flees, regardless of the underlying offense. The Court's new rule forces officers to make complex, on-the-spot judgments during dangerous pursuits, undermining effective law enforcement.
Concurring - Justice Kavanaugh
No. I join the Court's opinion because, in practice, cases involving fleeing misdemeanants will almost always involve a recognized exigent circumstance—such as risk of escape or destruction of evidence—that justifies warrantless entry. There is 'almost no daylight' between the Court's approach and the Chief Justice's, as officers will be justified in entering 'nine times out of 10 or more.' This decision does not disturb the long-settled rule that pursuit of a fleeing felon is itself an exigent circumstance justifying warrantless entry.
Concurring in part and concurring in the judgment - Justice Thomas
No. The majority correctly rejects a categorical rule for all misdemeanor pursuits, but historical exceptions for specific circumstances like an escaped arrestee or a breach of the peace should be recognized. Crucially, even if the officer's entry was unlawful, the federal exclusionary rule should not apply in cases of flight. The rule's purpose is to deter flagrant misconduct, not to reward a defendant who creates the situation by fleeing a lawful stop, which would create a perverse incentive for suspects to endanger the public.
Analysis:
This decision rejects a bright-line rule that many lower courts had adopted, instead mandating a more nuanced, fact-intensive inquiry for misdemeanor hot pursuit cases. It reinforces the special protection afforded to the home under the Fourth Amendment, weighing it against law enforcement needs on a case-by-case basis. The ruling may create uncertainty for police officers, who must now assess the 'totality of the circumstances' during a dynamic pursuit to decide if a warrantless entry is justified, potentially leading to more litigation over the reasonableness of their actions.
