By Terry Baxter, Law Enforcement and Safety Specialist
A new U.S. Supreme Court ruling this past month related to a police officer’s warrantless entry into a person’s garage. The incident giving rise to Lange v. California began when a California Highway Patrol Officer observed the occupant of a parked car playing loud music and repeatedly honking his horn with no other traffic around. The officer, finding this behavior unusual, began to follow Lange once the car began moving, and soon after activated his top lights in an attempt to initiate a traffic stop. Rather than pull over and stop, Lange drove a short distance to his driveway and entered his attached garage. The officer followed Lange into the garage, interrupting the closing garage door. During the encounter in the garage, Lange showed signs of impairment. Lange was charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence. Lange moved to suppress evidence obtained after the officer entered his garage, arguing a warrantless arrest entry that violated the Fourth Amendment. The Superior Court of California denied Lange’s motion and the appellate division and California Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court ruling.
The Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to enter a home, but officers may enter a home without a warrant under certain circumstances, including when an exigency exists. The Court has found that exigencies may exist when an officer must act to prevent imminent injury, the destruction of evidence, or a suspect’s escape.
The lower courts concluded Lange failed to pull over, creating probable cause to arrest Lange for the misdemeanor of failing to yield to an emergency vehicle. They also determined Lange could not defeat an arrest begun in a public place by retreating into his home. Therefore, they reasoned, pursuit of a suspected misdemeanant was permissible under the exigent-circumstances exception to a warrant requirement.
On appeal, the Supreme Court was not so sure. It recognized that under existing precedent, “hot pursuit” of a felony suspect creates an exigency that always justifies warrantless entry into a home, however, this case involved a misdemeanor suspect. So, may a warrantless entry to a home be made when law enforcement pursues a person suspected of only a misdemeanor? The Supreme Court answered that question with a “maybe.” The Court found that unlike for felonies, there could be no such bright-line rule when only a misdemeanor is involved. Instead, the Supreme Court found that each set of circumstances must be judged on a case-by-case assessment of exigency when deciding whether a suspected misdemeanant suspect’s flight justifies a warrantless entry to a home. Let us be clear: this ruling falls far short of giving law enforcement complete freedom to conduct warrantless entries when the person being pursued is only suspected of a misdemeanor. Some of the Justices who wrote separate opinions noted that law enforcement officer’s job has just become more difficult, because in these split-second pursuit situations, they now must take time to second-guess whether the circumstances aside from the suspect’s flight are “urgent enough” to justify a
home entry.
Look, most law enforcement officers have been involved in a foot chase, and they know that suspects will do anything they can to elude the pursuing officer, including retreating into a home. But we cannot ignore the heightened constitutional safeguards that are applicable when intruding into the property of others, as the Lange case makes clear.
