Justices Consider Giving Police Broader Power In California “Chase” Case
February 25, 2021
CALIFORNIA CRUISING
|The Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments in a major case testing whether police can enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime. David Savage with the Los Angeles Times reports justices appeared divided over the dispute that centered around a Northern California man who was followed into his garage by a Highway Patrol officer. The officer entered the man’s garage without a warrant and gave him a citation for driving under the influence.
PLAY THAT FUNKY MUSIC
|Nina Totenberg with NPR reports, “The Supreme Court has long held that police may conduct a warrantless search when pursuing a fleeing felon under the doctrine of ‘hot pursuit.'” But justices yesterday had to wrestle with whether that applies to those suspected of minor offenses. In this week’s case, that minor offense was a driver playing loud music and at one point honking his horn several times.
FEAR THE TREE
|Stanford University law professor JEFFREY L. FISHER represented the California driver, ARTHUR LANGE, and argued before the justices that extending the hot-pursuit exception to include misdemeanors would vastly increase the power of police to intrude on someone’s home and property. Robert Barnes with The Washington Post writes, “When JUSTICE STEPHEN G. BREYER lamented how difficult it can be, because of different state laws, to easily classify behavior as a felony or misdemeanor, Fisher agreed. He said it was unnecessary for the court to come up with a bright-line rule. Instead, he said, such decisions must come case by case. Officers deserve ‘substantial discretion to analyze the situation, as the court has always said, but do require a showing of actual exigent circumstances,’ Fisher said.”
DANGER, WILL ROBINSON
|It wasn’t just Breyer — several justices were skeptical that SCOTUS could draw a clear line between felonies (in which warrantless searches are permitted) and misdemeanors. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS said during yesterday’s arguments, “The line between felonies and misdemeanors is very hard to draw. If it’s drunk driving, it can be a felony if it’s your third offense. I mean, how does an officer know whether it’s the first offense or the third?” JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN said that labeling a crime as a felony or misdemeanor also says little about whether the suspect was dangerous. She pointed out that most domestic violence offenses are misdemeanors while most white-collar frauds are felonies.
SCOTUS VIEWS
We Still Have to Worry About the Supreme Court and Elections
The New York Times“When the Supreme Court on Monday rejected Pennsylvania Republicans’ after-the-fact effort to invalidate late-arriving mailed ballots, it was tempting to suppose that the country’s courthouse doors had finally closed on this most litigated of presidential elections. If only it were that simple.”
Don’t Make It Easier For Police To Enter Your Home
Los Angeles Times“At Wednesday’s argument, some justices seemed concerned about the effect of a decision in favor of Lange. Justice Stephen G. Breyer pointed out that in some states, misdemeanor offenses include serious crimes. Lange’s lawyer, Jeffrey Fisher, acknowledged that fact, but he argued persuasively that the court should treat such incidents on a case-by-case basis. That would be a sensible approach at any time. But it’s especially important that the court not give police officers more leeway to skirt the 4th Amendment during a national reckoning about police misconduct.”