In February 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments involving the need for the police to obtain warrants to enter the home of people suspected of having committed a misdemeanor or minor crime. The Court had previously ruled that the police can enter a home of felons who flee.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that people are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures – and that the police need a warrant that can only be issued on probable cause. The Supreme Court has carved out many exceptions to this rule. The “felony fleeing” exception was one example. The Court was asked at the February hearing to decide if a misdemeanor exception also applies.

The New York Times reported that the Justices were torn about extending the exception to minor crimes. In the case before the Court, the minor offense was playing the car stereo too loudly. Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the case raised a “a cruel trilemma.” Justice Breyer said there were three possible resolutions – all of which had flaws.

1. If the Supreme Court extended the ruling to minor offenses – then “the home isn’t the castle at all for the most trivial of things.”
2. Hot pursuit does fulfill a valuable purpose. Not considering that purpose for minor offenses would mean some criminals would go free.
3. “The third alternative — drawing a distinction between felonies and misdemeanors — would create confusion and anomalies, he said.”

The background Lange v. California

The defendant, Arthur Lange, moved to Sonoma, California after a career in commercial real estate. Around 10 pm in autumn of 2016, he rode with “the windows down, loud music on and occasionally honking the car’s horn.” This conduct was noticed by state highway patrol officer, Aaron Weikert. Officer Weikert followed Lange believing the loud noise violated California law. When the officer neared Lange’s home (about 100 feet away), the officer turned on his patrol car’s overhead lights. Lange drove into his garage. As the door closed, the officer “stopped the door with his foot, forced it to reopen and confronted Mr. Lange, who appeared to be intoxicated.” Lange ultimately took and failed a blood alcohol test. His BAC was three times the .08 legal limit.

Officer Weikert charged Lange with a DUI (a misdemeanor there), not stopping after the officer activated his lights (another misdemeanor), and playing the car radio too loudly (a traffic infraction). Lange sought to suppress evidence, claiming the officer’s entry into his home was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The California Appeals Court ruled against Lange. Lange’s lawyer had argued that Lange did not reasonably think he was being detained (when the officer turned on his overhead lights) and that officer should have obtained a warrant before invading someone’s home.

The State of California also sought to suspend Lange’s driver’s license due to the DUI. Lange again argued that the arrest wasn’t’ lawful. The California civil court (which heard the license suspension case) agreed with Lange because when the officer entered the garage, all he knew about Lange was that had played the car music too loudly – and thus the entry by the officer was illegal.

The analysis of the Supreme Court Justices

Other Justices expressed their own thoughts at the February hearing:

• Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. raised the concern that once inside the home, “suspects can destroy evidence, arm themselves, and summon confederates.”
• Lange countered that he didn’t notice the officer’s flashing lights and therefore wasn’t fleeing. “The video shows there was no chase and Mr. Lange really didn’t flee,” Justice Alito said. Justice Alito suggested that the Court could rule that there was no pursuit and that the pursuit wasn’t “hot.”
• Justice Clarence Thomas called the chase a “meandering pursuit.”
• Justice Neil. M. Gorsuch “said he was inclined to base the court’s ruling on ‘what makes a pursuit hot instead of limits on the seriousness of the suspected crime.’”
• Justice Elena Kagan said that “labeling a crime a felony or a misdemeanor says little about whether the suspect was dangerous. Most domestic violence offenses are misdemeanors, she said, while most white-collar frauds are felonies.”
• Justice Breyer said that there was a fourth option, “which was ‘almost always’ to allow warrantless entries in hot pursuit but to leave open the possibility that some intrusions are unreasonable.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is the right one

In June, the Supreme court ruled unanimously for the driver, Lange. Justice Coney Barret wrote the opinion:

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.

Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the majority opinion – but he took the position that in almost every case, the hot pursuit of a person who an officer believes committed a misdemeanor will be considered “an emergency.”

Still, the ruling makes it more difficult to justify a 4th Amendment violation, especially for a misdemeanor. That makes it the right call, we think.

At Banks & Jones, our Knoxville criminal defense lawyers fight to have evidence against you suppressed if it was obtained in violation of your Constitutional rights. When there are strong arguments, we’re ready to appeal lower court decisions to higher courts. Our lawyers fight to obtain dismissals and acquittals – and to negotiate just please bargains. If you’ve been charged with a state or federal crime in or near Knoxville, call us at 865-546-2141 or complete our contact form to schedule an appointment.