Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Lange v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · 2021 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentWarrantless home entryExigent circumstancesHot pursuitFourth Amendmenthomewarrant

Facts

A California highway patrol officer saw Lange driving while playing loud music and repeatedly honking his horn. After the officer activated his overhead lights, Lange continued about a hundred feet to his home, entered his driveway, and went into his attached garage instead of stopping. The officer followed him into the garage without a warrant, observed signs of intoxication, conducted field sobriety tests, and later obtained a blood test showing a blood-alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. The State charged Lange with misdemeanor DUI and a noise infraction, and argued the officer also had probable cause to arrest him for the misdemeanor of failing to comply with a police signal.

Issue

Does the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect always qualify as an exigent circumstance permitting police to enter a home without a warrant? Or must courts determine exigency based on the particular facts of each case?

Rule

The flight of a suspected misdemeanant does not categorically justify a warrantless entry into a home. In misdemeanor pursuit cases, an officer must consider the totality of the circumstances, and warrantless home entry is permitted only when case-specific exigencies create a law enforcement emergency, such as imminent harm, threat to the officer, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Oregon, Officer Nina Flores saw Devin Marks riding a minibike on a public greenway where city law makes it a misdemeanor to operate motorized vehicles. When Flores activated her lights, Devin coasted half a block to his townhouse, stepped inside, and shut the door. Flores had no reason to think anyone was in danger, evidence would be destroyed, or Devin could leave through another exit before she got a warrant.

If Devin moves to suppress evidence obtained after Flores entered the townhouse without a warrant, how should a court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that flight by a suspected misdemeanant does not categorically create exigent circumstances. Courts must examine the totality of the circumstances and ask whether there was a true law-enforcement emergency leaving no time to obtain a warrant. Here, the facts supply only misdemeanor flight and no additional exigency such as imminent harm, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home, so warrantless entry was not justified. (Derived from Lange v. California (n.d.).)