The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that police cannot “categorically” justify a warrantless entry into a misdemeanor suspect’s home.
In a mostly unanimous decision, the court found that the Fourth Amendment generally protects people from impromptu police searches. The case is one of several Fourth Amendment disputes the high court has heard in the past year. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the court’s majority opinion. A number of justices also filed concurrences.
SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE IF POLICE CAN ENTER MISDEMEANOR SUSPECTS’ HOMES WITHOUT A WARRANT
The case came out of a traffic stop in California. A patrolman spotted the suspect, Arthur Lange, playing loud music and honking his horn while driving on the highway. He believed Lange was drunk and followed him home. At Lange’s house, the patrolman entered Lange’s garage and charged him with drunk driving after smelling alcohol on his breath.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against Lange, finding that the police officer had a “hot pursuit” carve-out from Fourth Amendment protections. Kagan wrote that while there are some exceptions for police in hot pursuit, there were not in this case.
“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,” Kagan wrote. “Those circumstances include the flight itself. But pursuit of a misdemeanant does not trigger a categorical rule allowing a warrantless home entry.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurrence, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, that largely disagreed with Kagan. Roberts presented an example of an armed suspect fleeing into his home to avoid arrest from a police officer. Because of the court’s decision, Roberts argued, that suspect could hide out in his house and possibly escalate the situation.
“The Constitution does not demand this absurd and dangerous result,” Roberts wrote. “We should not impose it.”
