Justices Skeptical of California’s Easy, Warrantless Entry

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.”