Criminal Justice

Lange v. California

In Lange v. California, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police, in all cases, to pursue an individual into a private home without a warrant while attempting to make a misdemeanor arrest, or whether specific exigent circumstances are required.

Case Summary

Arthur Lange was driving home when a police officer began following him with the intent to conduct a traffic stop, after observing Mr. Lange playing his music loudly and honking his car horn. When the officer turned on his lights, Mr. Lange was all but turning into his garage. As Mr. Lange continued into his garage and began closing the garage door, the officer exited his vehicle, prevented the garage door from closing, and entered the garage to question him. Based on the ensuing interaction, Mr. Lange was charged with driving under the influence.

Upholding Mr. Lange’s conviction and the officer’s warrantless entry into his home, the California state courts ruled that when an officer tries to arrest someone for a misdemeanor offense—any misdemeanor offense—and that person enters a private home instead of yielding to the arrest, an officer may always pursue that person into the home, without pausing to obtain a warrant, to make the arrest. The court stated that the seriousness of the offense in question has “no significance,” and it required no particular showing of exigent circumstances. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve lower-court disagreement over misdemeanor pursuits ending in warrantless home entries. CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Mr. Lange.

Our brief focuses on the principles that governed warrantless arrests under the common law at the Founding, a matter that the Supreme Court often considers when assessing whether a search is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. First, our brief explains that Founding-era common law prohibited officers from entering homes without the owner’s permission to make warrantless arrests, except in defined circumstances based on specific exigencies. We show that entering a home was allowed only when necessary to make an arrest for the most serious crimes or to suppress a violent breach of the peace for the benefit of public safety.

Second, our brief explains that while the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protections is not always defined by the common law, it is appropriate to apply the common law’s safeguards here. Since the Founding, many protections that the common law once provided against warrantless arrests have been eroded. The development of professional police forces and investigative law enforcement has transformed the nature of policing, making armed officers a more pervasive presence than when the Fourth Amendment was ratified. Meanwhile, many of the legal requirements for warrantless arrests have diminished, giving those officers discretionary arrest power far beyond what the Framers could have conceived of. These changes, we argue, make it critical to maintain the safeguards afforded by the common law against warrantless home intrusions.

Case Timeline

  • December 11, 2020

    CAC files amicus curiae brief

    Sup. Ct. Amicus Br.
  • February 24, 2021

    The Supreme Court hears oral argument

More from Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Daves v. Dallas County, Texas, et al.

In Daves v. Dallas County, the en banc Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether Dallas County’s use of a secured money bail system violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of...
Criminal Justice
March 25, 2021

Supreme Court expands meaning of ‘seizure’ under 4th Amendment

Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court on Thursday expanded the Constitution’s protection against an “unreasonable seizure,” ruling...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, By David G. Savage
Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Terry v. United States

In Terry v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether certain individuals sentenced for low-level crack-cocaine offenses prior to enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 are eligible for reduced sentences under the...
Criminal Justice
November 2, 2020

Supreme Court blocks injured officer’s suit against leader of Black Lives Matter rally

LA Times
WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a ruling by a panel of conservative...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, By David G. Savage
Criminal Justice
August 19, 2020

OP-ED: Roberts’ Rules: How the Chief Justice Could Rein in Police Abuse of Power

Take Care
A theme of Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinions this past term is that courts should...
By: David H. Gans
Criminal Justice
August 19, 2020

Protesters Demand the Protection our Constitution Promises. Courts are Beginning to Listen.

This summer, protesters around the country have demanded that our elected and community leaders pay...
By: Clare Riva