On June 23, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Lange v. California, refusing to extend the “hot-pursuit” exception to misdemeanor cases.
In this case, the defendant, Arthur Lange, drove by a California Highway Patrol officer while playing loud music and honking his horn. The officer followed Lange and attempted a traffic stop. By that time, Lange was only about a hundred feet from his home. He failed to stop for the officer, instead pulling into his driveway and entering his garage. The officer followed Lange in, interrupting the closing of the garage door, and began to question him. Observing signs of intoxication, the officer performed field sobriety tests, which Lange failed. Lange was arrested and charged with misdemeanor DUI.
Lange later moved to suppress the evidence obtained in the garage. The state argued that Lange had committed a misdemeanor when he failed to stop for the officer and that the officer had probable cause to arrest Lange for this offense. For this reason, the state argued, exigent circumstances justified the officer’s warrantless entry into Lange’s garage. The court denied Lange’s motion to suppress. Lange appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeals. Affirming the court’s ruling, the court of appeals reasoned that Lange’s “fail[ure] to immediately pull over” when the officer flashed his lights created probable cause to arrest him for a misdemeanor.” 2019 WL 5654385 at *7. And a misdemeanor suspect could “not defeat an arrest which has been set in motion in a public place” by “retreat[ing] into” a house or other “private place.” See id., at *6-8. Rather, an “officer’s ‘hot pursuit’ into the house to prevent the suspect from frustrating the arrest” is always permissible under the exigent-circumstances “exception to the warrant requirement.” Id., at *8. The Supreme Court reversed.
As a general rule, the Fourth Amendment requires a police officer to obtain a warrant before entering a home. However, the Supreme Court has recognized numerous exceptions to that rule, including when exigent circumstances exist. In United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976), the Court recognized that the “hot pursuit” of a felony suspect created exigency that justified warrantless entry into a home. Since 1976, courts around the country have split on whether to extend that exception to the “hot pursuit” of a misdemeanor suspect.
The Lange Court resolved the split by rejecting a categorical rule allowing warrantless entry when an officer is in hot pursuit of a misdemeanor suspect. In doing so, it held as follows:
The flight of a suspected misdemeanant does not always justify a warrantless entry into a home. An officer must consider all the circumstances in a pursuit case to determine whether there is a law enforcement emergency. On many occasions, the officer will have good reason to enter—to prevent imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home. But when the officer has time to get a warrant, he must do so—even though the misdemeanant fled.
If you have questions about Lange or its applicability in a particular situation, please feel free to contact me at clbacon@napierlawfirm.com or 602-248-9107.
