COURT WEIGHS POLICE POWERS IN PURSUITS
The case of a Northern California motorist who drove home one night playing loud music on his radio and drawing the notice of a Highway Patrol officer could establish an important precedent on the powers of the police and the privacy rights of homeowners.
The Supreme Court heard an appeal Wednesday from Arthur Lange, a Sonoma County man who was followed home and then into his garage by the officer, who then gave him a citation for driving under the influence.
At issue in Lange v. California is whether the police may pursue people into their homes or apartments to question them about a minor crime.
Lange’s case fell under the “hot pursuit” exception. The officer who followed Lange’s car onto his residential street said he had reason to question the driver for a “noise infraction.” About four seconds before Lange turned into his driveway, the officer said he put on his red flashing lights, which meant the motorist should stop.
Lawyers from Stanford Law School, representing Lange, urged the court to put limits on the powers of the police and to rule officers need evidence of a true danger or a felony crime before they enter private property without a search warrant.
But the justices sounded mostly skeptical of imposing a limitation on police as they pursue suspects, particularly those who do not stop.
Chief Justice John Roberts said a police officer usually would not know exactly what crime prompted a suspect to flee.
“The person who is being chased should stop,” added Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
However, two conservative justices — Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito Jr. — questioned giving the police broad power to enter homes, particularly in cases like Lange’s. “There was no chase here,” Alito said. “He simply proceeded into his own garage.”
The Fourth Amendment forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and in the past, the Supreme Court has said police generally may not go into a residence or the private area near a house without a search warrant. There are exceptions in emergencies where lives may be in danger or if an officer in is in “hot pursuit” of a crime suspect.
Lange, who retired to Sonoma after a career in commercial real estate, challenged his drunken driving citation on the grounds that the evidence against him arose from an unconstitutional search. He lost before a Superior Court judge and a California appeals court, which ruled police have broad authority to enter private property if they are pursuing someone who fled and refused an officer’s command to stop, regardless of the nature of the crime.
His Stanford lawyers urged the court to reject that constitutional rule. The justices will confer on Friday to cast their votes in the Lange case, and they are likely to issue a decision by the end of June.