Term: 2020
Docket: 20-18
Lange v. California
- Pro
20-18 LANGE V. CALIFORNIA DECISION BELOW: 2019 WL 5654385 AMANDA K. RICE, ESQUIRE, OF ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. CERT. GRANTED 10/19/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: Absent "consent" or "exigent circumstances," a police officer's "entry into a home to conduct a search or make an arrest is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless done pursuant to a warrant." Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 211 (1981). The question presented is: Does pursuit of a person who a police officer has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance sufficient to allow the officer to enter a home without a warrant? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: A157169
In the case of Lange v. California, 2020, Arthur Lange was pursued to his home by a police officer for playing loud music and honking his horn while driving. The officer followed without activating sirens or lights and did not have an arrest warrant when he entered Lange's garage as it was closing. Once inside, the officer conducted a sobriety test on Lange who failed and was charged with DUI (driving under influence) and noise violation charges. However, this raised questions about Fourth Amendment rights which protect against unreasonable searches or seizures in one’s own home without a warrant. Lange appealed that the evidence should be suppressed due to unlawful entry into his residence but both lower courts denied him citing "hot pursuit" exception even though these were minor offenses. This led to Supreme Court review where they examined whether this hot pursuit principle applies universally regardless of if it is felony or misdemeanor crime involved. The court ruled in favor of Mr.Lange stating that pursuing officers must consider exigent circumstances before entering homes without warrants even during pursuits involving misdemeanors.
In the dissenting opinion for Lange v. California, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority's decision to limit police officers' ability to enter homes without a warrant in pursuit of misdemeanors was misguided and lacked historical support. He contended that there is no constitutional distinction between felonies and misdemeanors when it comes to exigent circumstances allowing warrantless home entry. The Fourth Amendment does not explicitly differentiate between these two types of crimes, he noted, adding that at the time of its drafting many serious crimes we now consider felonies were classified as misdemeanors. Furthermore, he pointed out practical concerns with this ruling: It could potentially endanger law enforcement officers who might hesitate before pursuing suspects into their homes due to fear of legal repercussions or create confusion about what constitutes a "serious" crime justifying such action.
