support@bluetogold.com

or use our live chat

888-579-7796

Customer Service

LEGAL

RESEARCH

Lange v. California

Facts

Petitioner Arthur Lange drove by California highway patrol and was โ€œasking for attentionโ€ (honking, loud music, windows down). The officer began to follow Lange, and then turned on his overhead lights to initiate a stop. Lange did not stop, but rather kept driving a short distance and entered his driveway and attached garage. The officer followed and put Lange through a field sobriety test, showing his blood-alcohol as three times the legal limit. Lange was charged with the misdemeanor of DUI. โ€œLange moved to suppress all evidence obtained after the officer enter this garage, arguing that the warrantless entry had violated the Fourth Amendment.โ€

Issue

โ€œWhether the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect alwaysโ€”or more legally put, categoricallyโ€”qualifies as an exigent circumstance.โ€

Held

โ€œUnder the Fourth Amendment, pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not alwaysโ€” that is, categoricallyโ€”justify a warrantless entry into a home.โ€ โ€œThe Courtโ€™s Fourth Amendment precedents counsel in favor of a case-by-case assessment of exigency when deciding whether a suspected misdemeanantโ€™s flight justifies a warrantless home entry.โ€

Discussion

โ€œThe 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 enterโ€”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 soโ€”even though the misdemeanant fledโ€

Citation

141 S.Ct. 2011 (2021)

Send a message!

Subscribe to Update