When the totality of circumstances shows an emergency-a need to act before it is possible to get a warrant-the police may act without waiting. The Court’s Fourth Amendment precedents thus point toward assessing case by case the exigencies arising from misdemeanants’ flight. But no evidence suggests that every case of misdemeanor flight creates such a need. In many cases, flight creates a need for police to act swiftly. Add a suspect’s flight and the calculus changes-but not enough to justify a categorical rule. The Court has held that when a minor offense (and no flight) is involved, police officers do not usually face the kind of emergency that can justify a warrantless home entry. States tend to apply the misdemeanor label to less violent and less dangerous crimes. Misdemeanors run the gamut of seriousness, and they may be minor. Santana did not resolve the issue of misdemeanor pursuit as the Court noted in a later case, “the law regarding warrantless entry in hot pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanant is not clearly established” one way or the other. Even assuming that Santana treated fleeing-felon cases categorically, that statement still does not establish a flat rule permitting warrantless home entry whenever a police officer pursues a fleeing misdemeanant. In upholding a warrantless entry made during a “hot pursuit” of a felony suspect, the Court stated that Santana’s “act of retreating into her house” could “not defeat an arrest” that had “been set in motion in a public place.” Id., at 42–43. The amicus contends that a suspect’s flight always supplies the exigency needed to justify a warrantless home entry and that the Court endorsed such a categorical approach in United States v. The Court has found that such exigencies may exist when an officer must act to prevent imminent injury, the destruction of evidence, or a suspect’s escape. But an officer may make a warrantless entry when “the exigencies of the situation,” considered in a case-specific way, create “a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.” Kentucky v. The Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires that a law enforcement officer obtain a judicial warrant before entering a home without permission. (a) The Court’s Fourth Amendment precedents counsel in favor of a case-by-case assessment of exigency when deciding whether a suspected misdemeanant’s flight justifies a warrantless home entry. Held: Under the Fourth Amendment, pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not always-that is, categorically-justify a warrantless entry into a home. The California Supreme Court denied review. The pursuit of a suspected misdemeanant, the court held, is always permissible under the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. And it stated that Lange could not defeat an arrest begun in a public place by retreating into his home. It concluded that Lange’s failure to pull over when the officer flashed his lights created probable cause to arrest Lange for the misdemeanor of failing to comply with a police signal. The California Court of Appeal also affirmed. The Superior Court denied Lange’s motion, and its appellate division affirmed. Lange moved to suppress the evidence obtained after the officer entered his garage, arguing that the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment. The State charged Lange with the misdemeanor of driving under the influence. A later blood test showed that Lange’s blood-alcohol content was three times the legal limit. He questioned Lange and, after observing signs of intoxication, put him through field sobriety tests. The officer followed Lange into the garage. Rather than stopping, Lange drove a short distance to his driveway and entered his attached garage. The officer began to follow Lange and soon after turned on his overhead lights to signal that Lange should pull over. Lange drove by a California highway patrol officer while playing loud music and honking his horn. This case arises from a police officer’s warrantless entry into petitioner Arthur Lange’s garage.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |