misdemeanor suspect illegally pursued into his home

SCOTUS has decided that the Fourth Amendment does not permit a blanket rule that police may always pursue a misdemeanor suspect into his home if he flees there. Instead, in Lange v. California, the Court held that police need to weigh all of the circumstances and be able to articulate an exigency that must be prevented. If they can’t, then they can’t enter the home without a search warrant.

The Court clearly articulated that suspicion of committing a misdemeanor, by itself, is not enough. In this case Mr. Lange drove past a California highway patrol officer while playing loud music and honking his horn. The officer “lit him up” to make a traffic stop, but the defendant drove a short distance to his home where he entered his garage. The officer entered right behind him, interviewed him, and ultimately arrested him for DUI.

The Supreme Court agreed that flight was a factor that adds to exigency, but unless police can show that evidence was going to be destroyed, or such other compelling factors that require immediate intervention with no time for police to get a search warrant, police who enter the home to chase the misdemeanor suspect do so illegally.

This creates a bit of a quandary for the local constabulary. There is no bright line rule. So a police officer, mid-chase, must assess all the factors at play and then make the right call before entering the home – or he risks suppression of any evidence that is obtained. Perhaps I would trust a grizzled sergeant with 20 years of experience to get that call right in the heat of a car chase, but a rookie cop with minimal experience? He’s probably lucky if he knows the legal principles, but certainly would not be in a situation to calmly perform the necessary legal calculus, assessing all relevant factors and then determining whether to enter the garage or leave to obtain a search warrant. This will result in much litigation over this issue. I would advocate for adoption of a bright line rule in Pennsylvania to clarify the situation, but Pennsylvania is powerless to reframe a federal constitutional issue. Thus, we defense attorneys get the benefit of a nice tool in our arsenal with which to attack any case where police entered the home pursuant to an allegation of exigent circumstances rather than a search warrant.