Supreme Court Holds That Officers’ Pursuit of a Fleeing Suspected Misdemeanant Does Not “Categorically” Justify Warrantless Entry to the Home
This case law update was written by Michael J. Sgarlat, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2015. Mr. Sgarlat works with federal employees to respond to proposed disciplinary and adverse actions, and has experience litigating cases before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.
Yesterday, in an opinion authored by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court issued an order on United States v. Lange, and held that the flight of a suspected misdemeanant does not always justify the warrantless entry of a police officer into a home. FEDagent previously reported on this case when the Court granted certiorari.
The facts in this case involved Arthur Lange’s vehicular conduct when cruising past a California highway patrol officer in Sonoma, CA. Lange was listening to loud music and honking his horn when he past the officer. The officer followed Lange and soon turned on his overhead lights.
By time the officer turned on his lights, Lange was a few hundred feet from his house, and instead of pulling over for the officer, continued into his driveway and entered his attached garage. The officer followed Lange into the garage and started to question him. Lange appeared intoxicated, and the officer put Lange through field sobriety tests. Lange flunked the sobriety tests. A blood test later showed his blood-alcohol content was three times the legal limit.
Lange was charged with a misdemeanor of driving under the influence of alcohol, plus a noise infraction. Lange moved to suppress all evidence obtained after the officer entered the garage, arguing that the warrantless entry had violated the Fourth Amendment. The superior court denied Lange’s motion, and its appellate division affirmed. The California Court of Appeal also affirmed, accepting the state’s argument that the officer had probable cause to arrest Lange for the misdemeanor of failing to comply with a police signal. The California Supreme Court denied review.
Lange petitioned for a writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted the petition. In the Court’s opinion, it noted that lower courts are divided over whether the Fourth Amendment always permits an officer to enter a home without a warrant in pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect. Some courts have adopted a categorical rule, while others have required a case-specific showing of exigency. The Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict and address whether the pursuit of a fleeing suspect categorically qualifies as an exigent circumstances.
The Court stated that the warrant requirement to enter a home is subject to certain exceptions, with an important one being exigent circumstances. This exception applies when “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable.” Some exigencies include an officer’s entrance of a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant, protect an occupant from imminent injury, to ensure the safety of an occupant, prevent the destruction of evidence, or prevent a suspect’s escape.
The Court explained that exigencies are generally applied on a case-by-case basis. This is determined by looking at the “totality of the circumstances” confronting the officer as he decides to make a warrantless entry. Here, the Court toiled with whether to use this approach, or instead apply a categorical warrant exception, when a suspect of a misdemeanor flees from police into his home.
The Court stressed the constitutional interest at stake in making its determination: “the sanctity of a person’s living space.” Indeed, the Court said that at the Fourth Amendment’s “very core,” is “the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion.”
The Court distinguished United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976), where the Court found that a felony suspect’s retreat into the house could not defeat an arrest that was set in motion in a public place. Per the Court, the concurrence and amicus wrongly accepted Santana to broadly hold that police in hot pursuit of any fleeing suspect may enter a home without a warrant.
The main distinguishing factor for the Court was that here there was a misdemeanor chase. The Court noted that misdemeanors “vary widely” and may be “minor.” Indeed, it noted that states often apply the label to less violent and less dangerous crimes. The Court further noted that it has previously held that when a minor offense alone is involved, police officers do not usually face the kind of emergency that can justify a warrantless entry to a home.
The Court said that precedent cases therefore “point toward assessing case by case the exigencies arising from misdemeanants’ flight.” The Court mentioned that this approach will in “many, if not most,” cases permit officers to enter a home without a warrant. The totality of the circumstances just needs to show an emergency. But the Court stated that the need to pursue a misdemeanant does not trigger a categorical rule allowing officers to enter a home, even absent a law enforcement emergency.
The Court therefore held that “[w]hen the nature of the crime, the nature of the flight, and surrounding facts present no such exigency, officers must respect the sanctity of the home – which means that they must get a warrant.” Because the California Court of Appeal applied the categorical rule the Supreme Court now rejects, the Supreme Court vacated its judgment and remanded the case.
Read the full case: United States v. Lange
For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.