Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lang V California topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supreme Court says officers cannot always pursue misdemeanants into homes without a warrant
Summary
In Lang v. California (2021) the Supreme Court rejected a categorical ‘hot pursuit’ rule for misdemeanors and remanded the case, holding that warrantless entry into a home must be judged under the totality of the circumstances and existing exigent-circumstance exceptions.
The Supreme Court in Lang v. California (2021) held that police may not rely on a categorical ‘hot pursuit’ rule to enter a home without a warrant when pursuing a person suspected only of a misdemeanor, and remanded the case to the lower court for proceedings consistent with that holding.
The Court framed the question against the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, noting that while the amendment contemplates how warrants are obtained it does not create an absolute warrant requirement and that the amendment’s touchstone is "reasonableness." The Court acknowledged prior authority permitting warrantless entry in some circumstances but declined to extend a blanket rule to all misdemeanor pursuits.
Sam Lockridge, presenting on FLETCalks, summarized the factual record the Court considered: a California Highway Patrol officer attempted a traffic stop for loud music and repeated horn use; Arthur Lang drove roughly 100 feet to his residence and into his garage; the officer followed and observed signs of alcohol impairment. Lockridge said the officer subsequently arrested Lang and a blood test showed a level "more than three times over the legal limit."
Lockridge recounted that the Court contrasted Santana (1976), which allowed warrantless entry to apprehend a fleeing felon, with the facts in Lang and concluded that the need to pursue a misdemeanor offender alone does not in every instance constitute the emergency necessary to justify entering a home without a warrant. Instead, the Court directed lower courts to evaluate warrantless entries under a totality-of-the-circumstances approach and confirmed that recognized exigent circumstances — imminent threat to life or safety, imminent destruction of evidence, or likely escape — may still justify warrantless entry in specific cases.
The Supreme Court determined the lower court erred in treating misdemeanor flight as a categorical exception and remanded Lang for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s legal framework. Lockridge closed the session noting the remand and the need for case-specific analysis going forward.
The remand means the lower court must reevaluate whether, under the totality of the facts in Lang, the officer’s entry was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
