Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability (PPSA)
  • Issues
  • Solutions
  • SCORECARD
    • Congressional Scorecard Rubric
  • News
  • About
  • TAKE ACTION
    • PRESS Act
    • Over 3 Million Searches
  • Issues
  • Solutions
  • SCORECARD
    • Congressional Scorecard Rubric
  • News
  • About
  • TAKE ACTION
    • PRESS Act
    • Over 3 Million Searches

 NEWS & UPDATES

Justices Skeptical of California’s Easy, Warrantless Entry

2/26/2021

 
Picture
Inside the Supreme Court. Photo courtesy Wikimedia
In a case testing the limits of warrantless entry, liberal and conservative justices of the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday posed questions to counsel that kept returning to the durable guidance of the Fourth Amendment.
 
In Lange v. California, a California Highway Patrol officer had observed Arthur Gregory Lange commit a minor traffic offense. The officer flashed his lights at the entrance to Lange’s driveway while Lange, possibly unaware of the officer, entered his garage. The officer then entered Lange’s garage without a warrant.
 
The core issue the court considered: Is a police officer’s pursuit of a person suspected of a misdemeanor enough of an “exigent circumstance” to justify a warrantless entry?
 
Several Supreme Court justices seemed concerned that a new, looser standard would deviate from the Fourth Amendment. They were skeptical that a new standard, perhaps one separating felonies from misdemeanors, would even work as a national standard, given that states define criminal categories so differently.
 
  • Justice Samuel Alito noted the traditional understanding “very simply is that hot pursuit has to be hot and it has to be pursuit … it has to involve a chase.”
 
  • Justice Neil Gorsuch asked if it makes sense to jettison the understanding that “generally says that you get to go into a home without a warrant if the officer sees a violent action or something that’s likely to … lead to imminent violence?”
 
“Why would we create a rule that is less protective than what everyone understands to be the case of the Fourth Amendment as [an] original matter? Why would we adopt a rule we know is wrong as an original matter? … I don’t know why we would adopt a rule that’s less protective than the original meaning.”
 
  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked if the Court “should hew to the common law more strictly and recognize exceptions only that reflect the teachings of the common law, so exigent circumstances, hot pursuit for serious offenses that themselves ... suggest a basis for entry or a need for entry.”
 
  • Justice Amy Coney Barrett continued in kind—“If, in fact, the common law rule was quite narrow and said warrantless entries into the home only when there are felonies, breaches of the peace in affrays, and escapes from arrest, why wouldn’t that end the matter?”
 
  • Justice Stephen Breyer noted that in California it is a crime to give away a rabbit as a lottery prize, adding: “[I]t seems ridiculous when your home isn’t your castle for terribly minor things. If we take the opposite view, we lose the benefits of a bright line where hot pursuit is really serving an important purpose.”
 
  • Chief Justice John Roberts asked about extended protection for curtilage – the immediate structures around a property, such as a garage. “You know, a man’s home is his castle, but we’ve also extended special protection to curtilage.”
 
Considerations of rabbits and driving violations may make the issue seem arcane. Adam Forester Griffin and Josh Windham in a Federalist blog see the core issue:
 
“The question of when and how police may enter our homes strikes at the core of American liberty. It was on the Founding Fathers’ minds when they rallied a nation to revolution. It’s on many of our minds today following the tragic shooting of Breonna Taylor in her Louisville apartment. And it’s a question the Supreme Court is poised to address yet again this term in an important Fourth Amendment case called Lange v. California.”

Comments are closed.

    Categories

    All
    2022 Year In Review
    Analysis
    Call To Action
    Congress
    Congressional Hearings
    Congressional Unmasking
    Court Hearings
    Court Rulings
    Digital Privacy
    Domestic Surveillance
    Facial Recognition
    FISA
    FISA Reform
    FOIA Requests
    Fourth Amendment
    Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act
    Government Surveillance
    Insights
    In The Media
    Lawsuits
    Legal
    Legislation
    Letters To Congress
    NDO Fairness Act
    News
    Opinion
    Podcast
    PPSA Amicus Briefs
    Private Data Brokers
    SCOTUS
    SCOTUS Rulings
    Section 702
    Spyware
    Stingrays
    Surveillance Issues
    Surveillance Technology

    RSS Feed

© COPYRIGHT 2023. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. | PRIVACY STATEMENT
Photo used under Creative Commons from coffee-rank