Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality of Warrantless Entry in “Hot Pursuit” of Misdemeanor Suspect
This case law update was written by James P. Garay Heelan, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2012. Mr. Heelan represents federal personnel across the Executive Branch, including career senior executives, law enforcement officers, foreign service officers, intelligence officers, and agencies in matters of federal personnel and employment law.
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether pursuit of a person who a police officer has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor allows the officer to enter a home without a warrant.
One evening in October 2016, Arthur Lange was driving home in Sonoma, California, listening to loud music. At one point, Lange honked his horn multiple times. California highway patrol officer Aaron Weikert began following Lange. Weikert would later testify he believed Lange’s conduct amounted to noise infractions warranting fines of at least $25.
Initially, Weikert followed Lange at “some distance” without activating his siren or overhead lights. After Lange turned onto his residential street, Weikert got closer. Approaching his home, Lange slowed and activated his garage opener. Weikert then turned on his overhead lights, but not his siren or megaphone.
“Approximately four seconds” after Weikert activated his overhead lights, Lange turned into his driveway and parked in the garage attached to his house. Weikert parked in the driveway behind Lange, and “as the garage door began to descend,” he exited his vehicle, “stuck his foot under the door to stop it from closing,” and entered Lange’s garage.
Inside the garage, Weikert asked Lange about the music and honking, requested his license and registration, and ordered Lange out of the garage for a driving under the influence investigation. Lange was subsequently charged with driving under the influence and “operating a vehicle’s sound system at excessive levels.” Lange was not charged with any offense for continuing into his garage rather than stopping on the street when Weikert activated his lights.
Before the state trial court, Lange moved to suppress the evidence that Weikert obtained after entering his garage, arguing that the officer’s “warrantless entry into his home violated the Fourth Amendment.” In response, the prosecution argued that Lange’s failure to stop after Weikert activated his lights created probable cause to arrest Lange for the uncharged misdemeanors of failing to obey a lawful order and obstructing a police officers. The prosecution further argued that because Weikert had probable cause to arrest Lange for those uncharged misdemeanors, his pursuit of Lange created an exigency sufficient to justify his warrantless entry into Lange’s garage.
The trial court denied Lange’s motion to suppress. Lange then pleaded no contest to a DUI charge and appealed the trial court’s decision denying his motion to suppress. Two separate appellate tribunals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The California Supreme Court subsequently denied Lange’s petition for discretionary review.
On Lange’s behalf, the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic filed a petition for a writ of certiorari for the U.S. Supreme Court to review Lange’s case. The petition argued that a “gap” in the Court’s precedents left open the question of “whether an officer with probable cause to arrest a suspect for a misdemeanor may enter a home without a warrant while in hot pursuit of a suspect.” Five state courts of last resort (Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, North Dakota, and New Hampshire” have held that misdemeanor pursuit always allows police to enter home without a warrant. Two federal courts of appeals (Tenth and Sixth Circuits) and three state courts of last resort (Arkansas, Florida, and New Jersey) have rejected the categorical rule and require a case-specific showing of exigency to permit warrantless entry in pursuit of a misdemeanor suspect. Lange’s petition argued the Supreme Court should resolve this split in authorities and fill the “gap” in its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
California opposed Lange’s petition, arguing Weikert acted constitutionally. California further argued that Lange’s case was not an “ideal vehicle” for resolving the question it presented because it arose from a mid-level appellate court decision and because it would not fully resolve Lange’s case. California specifically argued that Lange’s case would did not turn on the Fourth Amendment question presented in his petition because Weikert’s “good faith” conduct would exempt the evidence he obtained in Lange’s garage from an application of the exclusionary rule in Lange’s case.
On October 19, 2020, the Supreme Court granted Lange’s petition for certiorari on its first conference circulation. The Court will now order the parties to further brief the legal question presented and schedule the case for argument in 2021.
FEDagent will post an update when the Court decides Lange’s case. Read documents with the Supreme Court in relation to Lange’s petition for review.
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.