SUPREME COURT LIMITS POLICE ABILITY TO PURSUE MISDEMEANOR SUSPECT INTO HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT

By Miriam Raftery

Photo: Supreme Court building, CC by NC-ND

June 23, 2021 (Washington D.C.) – In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled that unless there is an emergency, police cannot force their way into a misdemeanor suspect’s home without first getting a warrant.

The ruling does not apply to felony pursuits. However when pursuing a suspect over a misdemeanor offense, officers can only enter if there is good reason, which Justice Elena Kagan said would include circumstances such as 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,” she added.

The case before the high court involved a California Highway Patrol officer who saw a car playing loud music and honking its horn.  Officer Aaron Weikert followed the driver, believing he may have committed a noise infraction. The officer turned on lights on his patrol car but instead of stopping, the suspect, Arthur Lange, pulled into his garage and tried to shut the door, CNN reports. 

The officer used his foot to block the garage door sensor and forced the door to open, then entered the garage. He questioned Lange, saw signs of intoxication and ordered a sobriety test which led to Lange being charged with driving under the influence.

Lange’s lawyer, Jeffrey Fisher, argued that the evidence should be suppressed because police should have knocked on the door or obtained a warrant, not forced entry, arguing "the governmental interest in investigating minor offenses is not always or even usually strong enough to support home entries unsanctioned by judicial officers."   

California did not defend a lower court action or the action of its own California Highway Patrolman.

In its brief to the Supreme Court, the California Department of Justice argued against categorically applying a “hot-pursuit” exception to the warrant requirement in the misdemeanor context, noting that it would be contrary to the historical evidence regarding the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. California also argued that the Supreme Court had never extended its felony “hot-pursuit” exception to misdemeanors, and that adopting a nationwide “hot-pursuit” exception in all misdemeanor cases could materially increase intrusions on legitimate privacy interests.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta today applauded the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lange v. California, placing important safeguards on the circumstances in which police officers can enter a home without a warrant. While the Supreme Court has historically allowed warrantless entries whenever police are in “hot pursuit” of a suspected felon, today’s decision accepted California’s argument that the rule should not be extended categorically to the misdemeanor context. Under the decision, police officers across the country must either obtain a warrant or identify a case-specific emergency to pursue a misdemeanor suspect into their home.

“A person’s home is their castle,” said Attorney General Bonta. “No matter where you live, that underlying principle has always been enshrined in our Constitution: our homes are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is a safeguard that we must jealously defend. While there are important exceptions meant to serve public safety, our laws and policies must always strike a careful balance. I applaud the U.S. Supreme Court for doing exactly that in this decision.” 

A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is available here. A copy of the brief filed by the California Department of Justice is available here.