February 23, 2021
At 5:56 pm
The old English proverb indicates that a person’s home is his castle-a refuge from the outside world. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case to test how much protection the Constitution provides for families.Occurred in Lange v California What is it, is it always an “emergency situation” when the police chase someone for a misdemeanor that will enable the police officer to bring the suspect into the house without an arrest warrant.
The defendant in the case is Arthur Lange, who returned to his home in Sonoma, California by car in 2016. Lange honked his horn several times while listening to music under the driving window. Lange caught the attention of Aaron Weikert of the California Highway Patrol. He followed Lange into his residential area from a distance.
When Langer approached the driveway, Weikert turned on the overhead lights, but then Langer said he hadn’t seen Weikert, and Langer went into the garage. Weikert parked in Lange’s driveway, and when Lange’s garage door began to close, he stepped on the door to prevent it from closing. When the door reopened, Weikert entered the garage-he said he smelled alcohol. Lange was later sent to the hospital, where an examination determined that his blood alcohol level was 0.245%, more than three times the legal limit.
Lange was charged with driving a car under impact and violating noise regulations. He asked the trial court to prohibit the prosecutor from using the evidence obtained in the garage, and argued that Weikert violated the Fourth Amendment when he entered the garage without permission. The California Court of Appeals upheld Lange’s decision. It ruled that when Lange continued to drive into the driveway and into his garage after Wiggett turned on the lights, Wickert might have arrested Lange. And because Weikert was chasing Lange closely, even if Weikert had no warrant, it was reasonable for him to enter Lange’s residence. After the California Supreme Court refused to consider it, Lange asked the U.S. Supreme Court to accept his case. Agree to .
Lange’s argument: case study method
in his Introduction to advantages, Lange (Lange) urged the justices to overturn the state court ruling. Lange emphasized that although undocumented arrests and seizures may often be allowed outside the house, even if relatively minor crimes are involved, another rule applies inside the house. Lange believes that a core principle of the Fourth Amendment is that the police usually need an arrest warrant to enter the house. The Supreme Court has established an exception to this general rule for “emergency situations”, but it is limited. Lange emphasized: The court has repeatedly stated that the exception applies only to real emergencies, and the police do not have enough time to obtain recognition. Share certificates.
Lange believes that regardless of whether there is an emergency that allows the police to enter the police residence while pursuing the suspect, no matter what crime the police believe the suspect has committed, the decision should be made based on the specific circumstances. . But Langer went on to say that, at the very least, the court should reject an absolute rule that allows the police to enter the house without a warrant when following someone they believe has committed a misdemeanor. Lange has a wide range of behaviors, some of which (such as crossing the road and loitering) are not violent at all. Lange writes that this is an absolute exception, and “will ignore these differences, and treat the pursuit of chasing teenagers home after the curfew the same as the treatment of fugitive armed robbers.”
Lange firmly opposed any suggestion that the classification rules would benefit police officers, and pointed out that police officers always make decisions based on specific circumstances under other circumstances. Lange added that when police officers determine that they really need to enter the house without a warrant (for example, to ensure that evidence is not destroyed or to protect others), the court usually maintains that entry. In contrast, Lange went on to say that if the police are allowed to enter the house in the absence of an emergency, the classification rules usually pay a high price, especially for people of color who are more likely to have contact with the police. The misdemeanor that led the police to hunt them down.
California’s argument: middle ground
California Initially told the court It should refuse to review, but in its Introduction to advantages It urges the justice to reverse the state court’s ruling, even though its reasoning and the result required by the justice are slightly different from Lange’s ruling. California acknowledges that the Supreme Court has established a classification rule that allows police officers to enter a house without a warrant when they pursue a person they believe has committed a felony, but the state believes that the court should draw a line here. The state contends that, in the context of a suspicious felony, the benefits of the general warrant requirement (for example, the possibility of the suspect’s escape or destruction of evidence) are less likely to exist in the prosecution of a misdemeanor. And in any case, the state continues to exist. When the police pursue the suspects of misdemeanors, they may in some cases determine that the emergency can prove that they can enter the suspect’s residence without an arrest warrant, or they can quickly apply for an arrest warrant.
The State of California recommends that even if the Supreme Court agrees that absolute rules do not apply to the prosecution of persons suspected of misdemeanor, the court should still return the case to the state court so that they can consider whether to recognize Lange’s evidence of influence should still be admitted. The state court can consider the evidence presented by California, because even if the official ultimately requested the Fourth Amendment to be wrong, he still acted in good faith.
Defend the following judgment: the defender appointed by the court intervenes
Because California refused to defend the state court’s decision, the Supreme Court appointed Detroit lawyer Amanda Rice as a friend of the court, who was the clerk of Justice Elena Kagan. Rice’s stakes are high, arguing that the Supreme Court case allows police to enter the house without a warrant when they are in hot pursuit of a fugitive suspect, and there is no hint that whether they can do so depends on whether the underlying crime is illegal. Felony.
Rice believes that such rules reflect an appropriate balance of interests involved. Regardless of the potential crime, the government has a keen interest in preventing criminal suspects from escaping from the police, and is generally keen in identifying criminal suspects. On the other hand, the privacy interests of criminal suspects are reduced. When being chased, he can surrender to the police outside the house to maintain the privacy of the house; if he chooses to go home, then he must expect the police to follow him to arrest him, so he gave up any expectations for privacy. Rice concluded: “This rule comes down to “common sense.” “Regardless of the type of the initial crime, the escaped suspect cannot transplant the protection of the house into a legal arrest, which is done by running openly inside. And it started. “
Rice praised the benefits of the classification rules and told the justices that it would provide police “clear and clear guidelines” for their jobs.” She argued that by contrast, Lange’s case rules would require police officers “Make instant decisions based on rapidly evolving facts,” transforming the discretion of police officers into constitutional review and potential civil liability every time. “
In her results for the Lange case, Rice went further than California. She suggested that even if the Supreme Court rejects an absolute rule, it should uphold the California Court of Appeals decision, because Weikert has been relying on the State Court of Appeals decision when following Lange into his garage. Rice added that, in addition, Weikert followed Lange’s decision “in any case, it is reasonable on its own terms.”
Controversy between the federal government and propaganda groups
The federal government submitted a brief document, which also urged the judge to confirm the state court’s decision. The government admits that although the Supreme Court’s hot pursuit cases involve possible reasons and believe that the suspect has committed a felony, all the same considerations are sufficient to enable the police to enter the house without a warrant when chasing the suspect for a felony. “Usually, even if it is not set in stone, it will extend to” cases involving misdemeanors. Even if there are no clear rules that allow police officers to enter the premises without warrant when pursuing suspects in cases involving misdemeanors, the government will continue, at least it should be generally accepted that such unauthorized entry is reasonable – the government added that Weikert is.
In support of Lange, ten different profiles of “Friends of the Court” were submitted, these summaries represent a wide range of views – American Civil Liberties Union with National Criminal Defense Lawyers Association To a Gun owner group.A kind Introduction to Privacy Advocates Advising judges on the wider impact of their decision, warning that a ruling that upholds the absolute rules of the state court may eventually allow the police to work without an arrest warrant in other circumstances (such as mobile phones and electronic devices, which usually include mobile phones and electronic devices). In case of a search, sometimes even a remote search of personal information found only in the home.
The state government and law enforcement groups led the six “friends of the court” profiles submitted in support of Rice and the following judgments.A kind National Brotherhood Police Briefing It emphasized that it did not require “its officials to implement legal restraints and ambitious arrests.” The organization emphasized that, instead, the classification rule outlined by the state courts is a narrow rule that only applies “in very limited circumstances.” On Wednesday, we will learn more about whether the justices view the case in the same way.
This article is Originally published in Haoge Court.