Case No. 20-18 | Cal. Ct. App., 1st Cir.
February 24, 2021
Preview by Jacob Reiskin, Online Editor
The Court in Lange confronts for the first time whether the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment prohibition on warrantless entry should be extended to officers who are in hot pursuit of misdemeanor offenders. The Court’s precedent recognizes that officers in pursuit of a person suspected of a felony offense may not be thwarted by the suspect’s decision to run into their home. See United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42–43 (1976). The disagreement is whether a categorical rule should be applied to persons suspected of committing misdemeanors.
Arthur Lange was driving home, playing loud music, and occasionally honking when an officer began following him. The officer only turned on his police lights as Lange was approaching his driveway. Lange did not stop, and instead proceeded up his driveway and into his garage, which he started to close. The officer got out of his car, stuck his foot under the door before it closed to trigger it to go back up, and then walked into the garage. The officer smelled alcohol and Lange was later arrested and cited for driving under the influence. Lange challenged the misdemeanor in the lower courts on the basis of a Fourth Amendment violation. Lange lost in the courts below and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after the California Supreme Court declined to take up a discretionary review.
The Court-assigned amicus advocate argues to the contrary that precedent does not recognize a difference in hot pursuits stemming from misdemeanor or felony offensesSee Brief of Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae Amanda K. Rice in Support of The Judgment Below at 10–13, Lange v. California, No. 18–20 (U.S. filed Jan. 8, 2021). She also points out the strong government interest in preserving government authority to conduct police work and apprehend suspects who are evading arrest. To this end, she argues that a case-specific approach is not administrable for fast-moving pursuits. See id. at 23–24. The United States also submitted an amicus brief arguing that the categorical rule for warrantless entry stemming from hot pursuit should also apply to misdemeanors. The United States determined that the officer’s action in this case was reasonable and that understanding the totality of the circumstances is critical to weighing Fourth Amendment procedure. See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Affirmance at 30–32, Lange v. California, No 18-20 (U.S. filed Jan 15, 2020).
Lange v. California marks another stop in a line of Supreme Court cases concerning warrantless entry. With a new Court makeup and heightened public concern over police invasion into the home, however, this case will have ripple effects for policing nationwide.