Justices to consider whether “hot pursuit” justifies entering the home without a warrant

[Elderberry]

SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe 2/24/2021

An old English maxim instructs that a man’s home is his castle – a refuge from the outside world. On Wednesday the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case testing how much protection the Constitution provides to the home. At issue in Lange v. California is whether, when police are pursuing someone for a misdemeanor, that is always an “exigent circumstance” that will allow the officer to follow the suspect into a house without a warrant.

The defendant in the case is Arthur Lange, who in 2016 was returning to his home in Sonoma, California, in his car. While driving with his windows down and listening to music, Lange also honked his horn a few times. Lange caught the attention of Aaron Weikert, a California highway patrol officer who followed Lange from a distance into his residential neighborhood.

Weikert turned on his overhead lights as Lange approached his driveway, but Lange – who later said that he had not seen Weikert – pulled into his garage. Weikert parked in Lange’s driveway and, as Lange’s garage door began to close, stuck his foot under the door to block it from closing. When the door reopened, Weikert entered the garage – where, he said, he smelled alcohol. Lange was later taken to a hospital, where testing determined that his blood-alcohol level was 0.245%, more than three times the legal limit.

Lange was charged with driving under the influence and a noise infraction. He asked the trial court to bar prosecutors from using evidence obtained in the garage, arguing that Weikert had violated the Fourth Amendment when he entered the garage without a warrant. The California Court of Appeal upheld Lange’s conviction. It ruled that Weikert had probable cause to arrest Lange when Lange continued to his driveway and into his garage after Weikert turned on his lights. And because Weikert was in “hot pursuit” of Lange, his entrance into Lange’s home was justified, even though Weikert did not have a warrant. After the California Supreme Court declined to weigh in, Lange asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up his case, which it agreed to do in  .

More:https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/justices-to-consider-whether-hot-pursuit-justifies-entering-the-home-without-a-warrant/

[catfish1957]

This seems like a joke.  So if a perp is a murderer  and finds his way to anyone's home, they now have to wait for a warrant?
If SCOTUS rules a certain way, many will die because cops were hamstrung in their apprehension duties.

Never thought I would see that, but OTOH, I thought I would never see Bond being extracted from the equation of keeping criminials off the street.

[txradioguy]

We're literally letting the inmates run the asylum at this point.  Criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens.

[Bigun]

This is much more important than ensuring that election laws are adhered to!

[skeeter]

This is much more important than ensuring that election laws are adhered to!

There seems to be a developing trend, doesn't there.

[Cyber Liberty]

For a Misdemeanor?  This is not about Murder.

[Bigun]

Clarence Thomas Savages Justices, Feckless John Roberts for Refusing PA Election Cases

And Justice Thomas definitely should not be the only one doing that! Every one of us should be joining him!

[Fishrrman]

If I read the original article correctly, it said the officer took interest in this guy for the "crime" of blowing his horn while driving.

Nothing else.

It wasn't until the officer "put his foot under the door" and physically entered the garage, that the officer "smelled alcohol".

There is no indication (from reading the article) that the officer noticed Lange driving erratically before he reached home.

The ONLY "probable cause" here was for "blowing the horn", for which a traffic citation might have been in order.

I hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mr. Lange on this.
Indeed, I predict that it will.

All you schmoes around here who seem to want a police state -- you're gonna get it soon enough, citizens. In spades.

[Cyber Liberty]

If I read the original article correctly, it said the officer took interest in this guy for the "crime" of blowing his horn while driving.

Nothing else.

It wasn't until the officer "put his foot under the door" and physically entered the garage, that the officer "smelled alcohol".

There is no indication (from reading the article) that the officer noticed Lange driving erratically before he reached home.

The ONLY "probable cause" here was for "blowing the horn", for which a traffic citation might have been in order.

I hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mr. Lange on this.
Indeed, I predict that it will.

All you schmoes around here who seem to want a police state -- you're gonna get it soon enough, citizens. In spades.

That's my opinion as well.  The po-po created the probable cause, and that's never good.

[Sled Dog]

The cop didn't have probable cause to stop the suspect and only attempted to stop him when he realized the suspect would be out of his car and into his home.

No testimony of swerving or other suspect behavior.

So, no, this particular case wouldn't seem to be a good case for review by courts that have already incinerated the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, not to forget whole swaths of the rest of the Constitution, on the altar of political correctness.

What would have been a case is if there had actually been a real "hot pursuit" of a suspect how fled his vehicle and entered his home.    In which case the police would have had probable cause to enter, thus not needing a warrant.

[Elderberry]

Justices hear argument on whether “hot pursuit” for misdemeanors allows police to enter home without a warrant

SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe on Feb 24, 2021

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/justices-hear-argument-on-whether-hot-pursuit-for-misdemeanors-allows-police-to-enter-home-without-a-warrant/

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Wednesday in the case of Arthur Lange, a northern California man convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. The evidence used to convict Lange was obtained by a California highway patrol officer, who had followed Lange in his car and then on foot into his garage. The question before the justices was whether the officer violated the Fourth Amendment when he went into Lange’s garage without a warrant, or whether the entrance was instead justified because the officer was in “hot pursuit” of Lange. At one point during the nearly two hours of argument by four different lawyers, Justice Stephen Breyer observed that the dispute before them was a “tough case.” Further complicating the justices’ decision was the sentiment that, at least for some of them, their actual ruling might not make much of a difference in practice.

The case before the court on Wednesday began in 2016, when Lange was driving in his car near his home in Sonoma, California. By playing loud music and honking his horn, Lange caught the attention of officer Aaron Weikert, who followed Lange into his neighborhood and attempted to stop him as he neared his home. Lange, who later said that he hadn’t seen Weikert, continued into his garage and began to close the door behind him. Weikert, who had parked his car in the driveway, put his foot under the door to block it from closing and entered the garage, where he said he smelled alcohol. Lange’s blood-alcohol level was later determined to be 0.245%, more than three times the legal limit.

Lange tried to have the evidence obtained after Weikert entered the garage thrown out, on the ground that Weikert had violated the Fourth Amendment by following him into his home without a warrant. The trial court declined to do so, and a California appeals court upheld Lange’s conviction. It reasoned that Weikert had probable cause to arrest Lange for failing to pull over when Weikert turned on his overhead lights, which is a misdemeanor. Because Weikert was in “hot pursuit” of Lange, he was justified in entering the garage without a warrant.

More at link.

[mountaineer]

This case offers a pretty poor example of "hot pursuit," in my opinion.