2020-2021 United States Supreme Court Update
During its 2020-2021 term, the United States Supreme Court did not release many opinions directly impacting law enforcement. However, they did render two opinions that addresses issues concerning Fourth Amendment law.
Torres v. Madrid
First, in Torres v. Madrid, 141 S.Ct. 989 (2021), New Mexico State Police officers approached Roxanne Torres, who was standing near her vehicle in the parking lot of an apartment complex in Albuquerque.
Torres was experiencing methamphetamine withdrawal symptoms and believed that the officers were armed carjackers trying to steal her car. Acting on this belief, Torres hit the gas pedal of the car to escape. The officers stood in the path of the vehicle, drew their service pistols, and fired 13 shots at Torres. She was struck twice in the back and her left arm temporarily paralyzed. Torres drove out of the parking lot, stopped in another lot, and stole a vehicle that happened to be idling nearby.
Torres sought treatment at a hospital 75 miles away but was later airlifted to a hospital in Albuquerque for appropriate care. Police arrested Torres, and she pleaded no contest to aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer, assault on a peace officer, and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.
Torres filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive force, making the shooting an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The federal district court dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted review.
The Court held in Torres that the application of physical force to a person’s body with the intent to restrain constitutes a seizure, even if the person does not submit and is not subdued. The appropriate test to determine whether a seizure occurs is whether the officer’s actions constitute an intent to restrain. This test does not depend on the officer’s subjective motivation, the subjective perception of the suspect, or the type of force used.
A seizure requires the use of force with intent to restrain, as opposed to force applied by accident or for some other purpose. A seizure by force lasts only if the application of force unless the suspect submits.
Lange V. California
In the second opinion, Lange v. California, 141 S.Ct. 2011 (2021), the Court addressed whether a misdemeanant’s flight always qualifies as a difficult circumstance, thereby permitting law enforcement to enter a residence without a warrant. In this case, Arthur Lange drove by a California Highway patrol officer while listening to loud music with his windows rolled down and was repeatedly honking his horn. The officer began to follow Lange’s vehicle and ultimately decided to execute a traffic stop.
At this point, Lange was approximately one hundred feet from his residence. Rather than stopping, Lange continued to his driveway and pulled his car into his attached garage. The officer followed Lange into the garage and began questioning him. Observing signs of intoxication, the officer subjected Lange to several field sobriety tests. Lange performed poorly on the tests, and a later blood test revealed that his blood alcohol content was more than three times California’s legal limit. The officer charged Lange with driving under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor, and a noise infraction.
Lange moved to suppress all evidence obtained after the officer entered his garage, arguing that the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment. In response, California argued that the officer had probable cause to arrest Lange for a misdemeanor offense.
Additionally, California asserted that the pursuit of a suspected misdemeanant always qualifies as an exigent circumstance authorizing a warrantless home entry. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and this decision was affirmed on appeal in California’s appellate courts. The United States Supreme Court accepted review.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Lange’s conviction, holding that the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect under the Fourth Amendment does not always or categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry into a home. In reaching this decision, the United States Supreme Court continued to recognize that a person’s living space has the greatest expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment is based on the principle that a person has the right to retreat into their own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion. The Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house. An officer may always enter a home with a proper warrant. Exigent circumstances will allow even warrantless intrusions, but the contours of that or any other warrant exception permitting home entry are limited.
In Lange, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires an assessment of the case-by-case exigences arising from a misdemeanant’s flight. Misdemeanors are usually minor offenses, categorized by less violent and less dangerous crimes. When a minor offense alone is involved, law enforcement does not usually face the kind of emergency that can justify a warrantless home entry.
While flight could potentially necessitate quick action by police, the Court held that every case of misdemeanor flight does not pose immediate dangers of evidence destruction or other flight.
When the totality of circumstances shows an emergency – such as imminent harm to others, a threat to the officer himself, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home – the police may act without waiting. However, the need to pursue a misdemeanant, does not trigger a categorical rule allowing home entry, even absent a law enforcement emergency.
Accordingly, under Lange, when the nature of the crime, the nature of the flight, and surrounding facts present no difficulty, officers must respect the sanctity of at home – which means that they must get a warrant.
Summary
Torres and Lange are significant to law enforcement officers, requiring analysis as to whether the officer has seized a person concerning use-of-force situations and whether the exigent “hot pursuit” has application to a crime involving a misdemeanor. Officers should consult with local prosecutors on how to apply the Court’s rulings in these cases.
