WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday put limits on when police officers pursuing a fleeing suspect can enter a home without a warrant.
The high court ruled that when officers are pursuing someone suspected of a misdemeanor, a less serious crime, they cannot always enter a home without a warrant if a suspect enters.
The court had previously said that police in “hot pursuit” of a suspect believed to have committed a more serious crime, a felony, can enter a home without a warrant.
The case the justices decided Wednesday is important both to law enforcement and to groups concerned about privacy.
“The 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 enter — 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 so — even though the misdemeanant fled,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a majority of the court.
The case before the justices involved California resident Arthur Lange. One evening in 2016, an officer saw Lange driving his station wagon in Sonoma County, playing music loudly and honking his horn several times. The officer believed those were noise violations punishable by small fines and followed Lange. The officer later turned on his car’s lights to get Lange to stop. But Lange continued driving for about four seconds, turned into his driveway and entered his garage without stopping.
The officer got out of his car and, as Lange’s garage door was closing, stuck his foot under the door so it would re-open. Lange was ultimately arrested after the officer smelled alcohol on his breath, and he was charged with driving under the influence as well as an excessive noise offense.
Lange argued that the officer’s entry into the garage without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
The case is Lange v. California, 20-18.
Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
SCOTUS can go to you know where on this case. A person has no business fleeing a police officer. Secondly, should the person fleeing the police go into his home, because the police are not allowed to enter the home, and the person gets a gun in his house, that could create a very dangerous situation for the police and any citizen outside of the perpetrators house.
Not just that, but WHILE THE COP(s) are away, getting a warrant, WHAT IS STOPPING that felon, from DESTROYING EVIDENCE that they could use to Prosecute him!?
Yes, there are corrupt and unqualified police. Yes mistakes are made. Yes there are abuses of power. Now let’s look at the other 99.9% of the evil committed by the cretins and low lifes that the left feels compelled to prop up as their poster children. As a result of liberal sabotage, this nation is headed for a predictable demise, brought upon by moral decay, no respect for life or property, and an entitlement mentality that has been a proven failure in every communist nation in history that our “progressive” superiors strive to be.
In this case I don’t see what was unreasonable about the officer’s actions.
I was victim of a hit and run, Christmas Eve, 1996.
The drunk tried to drive away but I got the plate number and the police were waiting at his home to snag him before he had a chance to enter and claim he chugged a bunch after he got home.
Once in the house they cannot prove it wasn’t so.
Me neither. BUT BOTH OF US are using common sense. Something that for months now, has been SORELY LACKING in the idiots on the scotus.