Lange v. California
No. 20-18
Decided on June 23, 2021
Issue:
Does a Fleeing Misdemeanant Suspect Grant a Warrantless Entry?
Whether police were entitled to a warrantless entry into defendant Lange’s home where they signaled for defendant to pull over on the street, but because he was 100 feet from his driveway, Lange instead pulled into his attached garage where the officer followed him into the garage, completed sobriety tests, and charged him with misdemeanor driving under the influence.
Holding:
Pursuit of Fleeing Suspect Is Not Necessarily An Exigent Circumstance
The Court held that an officer may make a warrantless entry when “the exigencies of the situation” create a compelling law enforcement need. The pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanant suspect does not categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance, as warrantless entry is decided on a case-by-case basis. The Court has held that when a minor offense (and no flight) is involved, police officers do not usually face the kind of emergency that can justify a warrantless home entry. See Welsh, 466 U.S. 740, 742-742. Add a suspect’s flight and the calculus changes, but not enough to justify a categorical rule.
Facts:
Defendant Arthur Lange drove past a California highway patrol officer while listening to loud music with his windows down and repeatedly honking his horn. The officer began to tail Lange, and soon afterward turned on his overhead lights to signal defendant to pull over. By that time, Lange was 100 feet from his driveway, so he continued to his home and entered his attached garage. The officer followed Lange in and began questioning him. Observing signs of intoxication, the officer put Lange through field sobriety tests and a later blood test showed his BAC was more than three times the legal limit.
The State charged Lange with misdemeanor driving under the influence and a noise infraction. Lange moved to suppress all evidence obtained after the officer entered the garage, arguing that the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment. The Superior Court denied Lange’s motion, and its appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals also affirmed, concluding that Lange’s failure to pull over when the officer flashed his lights created probable cause to arrest Lange for the misdemeanor of failing to comply with a police signal. It stated that Lange could not defeat an arrest begun in public by retreating to his home. The pursuit of a suspected misdemeanant, the court held, is always permissible under the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. The California Supreme Court denied review.
Analysis:
Fourth Amendment Sanctifies the Home
The Fourth Amendment provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The Court holds that when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, “the home is first among equals,” and that “Freedom” in one’s own “dwelling is the archetype of the privacy protection secured by the amendment.” Conversely, “physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which it is directed.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585, 587 (1980). The Court has, therefore, repeatedly declined to expand the scope of exceptions to the warrant requirement and is “not eager…to print a new permission slip for entering the home without a warrant.”
‘Now or Never’ Warrant Exceptions under the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions. An officer may make a warrantless entry when the “exigencies of the situation,” considered in a case-specific way, create “a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460; Missouri v McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 149.
The Court has identified several such exigencies. For example, an officer may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant, to protect an occupant from imminent injury, or to ensure his own safety. Police may also make a warrantless entry to “prevent the imminent destruction of evidence” or to “prevent a suspect’s escape.” (Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 403.) In those circumstances, the delay required to obtain a warrant would bring about “some real immediate and serious consequences” and so the absence of a warrant is excused. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 751 (1984).
The exception requires a court to examine whether an emergency justified a warrantless search in each particular case. The Court must determine whether a “now or never situation” actually exists; whether an officer has “no time to secure a warrant” depends upon facts on the ground.
The State contended in this case that a suspect’s flight always supplies the exigency needed to justify a warrantless home entry and that the Court endorsed such a categorical approach in United States v Santana, 427 U.S. 38. The Court disagrees. In Santana the Court upheld a warrantless entry made during a “hot pursuit” of a felony suspect, stating that Santana’s “act of retreating into her house” could “not defeat an arrest” that “had been set in motion in a public place” (Id. at 42-42). But even if Santana treated fleeing-felon cases categorically, it doesn’t establish a flat rule permitting warrantless entry whenever police pursue a fleeing misdemeanant. As the Court noted in a later case, “the law regarding warrantless entry in hot pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanant is not clearly established” one way or the other. Stanton v. Sims 571, U.S. 3, 8, 10.
Misdemeanant Flight Doesn’t Categorically Create Exigencies
The Court has held that when a minor offense (and no flight) is involved, police officers do not usually face the kind of emergency that can justify a warrantless home entry. See Welsh, 466 U.S. 740, 742-742. Add a suspect’s flight and the calculus changes, but not enough to justify a categorical rule. In many cases flight creates a need for police to act swiftly, but no evidence suggest that every case of misdemeanor flight creates such a need.
In Welsh, officers responded to a call about a drunk driver only to discover he had abandoned his vehicle and walked home. The officers then went to the driver’s house, entered without a warrant, and arrested him for a “nonjailable offense.” The State argued that exigent circumstances supported the warrantless entry because the driver’s “blood-alcohol level might have dissipated while the police obtained a warrant.” But the Court rejected that argument on the ground that the driver had been charged with only a minor offense. “The gravity of the underlying offense,” the Court explained,” is “an important factor to be considered when determining whether any exigency exists.” With Welsh the Court concluded that “application of the exigent-circumstances exception in the context of home entry should rarely be sanctioned when there is probable cause to believe that only a minor offense” is involved.
Thus, the Court’s Fourth Amendment precedents point toward assessing case by case the exigencies arising from misdemeanant’s flight. When the totality of circumstances shows an emergency—a need to act before it is possible to get a warrant—police may act without waiting. But when the nature of the crime, the nature of the flight, and the surrounding facts present no such exigency, offers must respect the sanctity of the home by getting a warrant. The case was therefore vacated and remanded.
Did a Fourth Amendment violation result in a conviction? Contact an appeals attorney today.