The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that depending on the circumstances of a police chase, the police cannot enter a home without a warrant, specifically if they are pursuing someone because of a misdemeanor or minor crime.
The ruling stems from a case in which a California man was followed by a police officer and arrested on his property after the man failed to pull over for a minor traffic stop.
In 2016, Arthur Lange was arrested and convicted for driving under the influence after police officer Aaron Weikert arrested him at his residence. Weikert pulled up behind Lange at a traffic light after he observed Lange “playing music very loudly” and honking his horn even though no one was in front of him. Weikert turned on his overhead police lights and attempted to pull over Lange, though Lange failed to pull over and instead drove to his home and pulled into his garage. Weikert pursued Lange into the garage and arrested him after he smelled alcohol. A blood test at a nearby hospital revealed Lange’s blood-alcohol level to be .245%, over three times over the legal limit.
Following the arrest, Lange argued that Weikert entered his garage and obtained evidence for the DUI without a warrant, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Following arguments, a California appeals court ruled that Weikert’s “hot pursuit” of Lange was justified even though he was arrested on his property without a warrant because there was enough probable cause leading up to the arrest.
The Supreme Court heard Lang’s arguments and unanimously determined that police could engage in a “hot pursuit” without a warrant so long as there was probable cause.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court, "Pursuit of a misdemeanant does not trigger a categorical rule allowing a warrantless home entry." Kagan explained, "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," she wrote. "But when the officer has time to get a warrant, he must do so — even though the misdemeanant fled."
Although the vote was unanimous, both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito explained in their views that when an individual decides to flee, that decision alone should allow police officers to pursue the suspect into a home. They explain that the majority’s opinion gives “no guidance at all” because police officers have too much to consider when they are pulling over or pursuing an individual. Roberts wrote, “The Constitution does not demand this absurd and dangerous result.”
The ruling has been received with mixed reactions. While the ruling puts a bit more restrictions on police officers in hot pursuits, it reinforces what good police officers already know according to Larry H. James, general counsel for the National Fraternal Order of Police. James filed a brief in the case and explained that the ruling reinforces what police officers already know which is to “use your common sense, use your training.” James adds, “When the situation warrants immediate action, take it. When it doesn’t, get a warrant.”
Other groups applaud the ruling as it's one step closer to putting limitations on what police officers can and cannot do, especially during this contentious time when police officers have been in the national spotlight for excessive force.
The case has been sent down to the lower courts to determine whether or not Lange’s rights were violated after Officer Weikert followed him into his home.
