Category: Search and Seizure

Kent did a short introduction of today’s Fourth Amendment case, Lange v. California, and I await his more detailed analysis.  In the meantime, I was discussing the case with a defense lawyer friend of mine, a very smart guy and a bit of a cynic.  One of his pals said that the CNN summary of the case went, “The U.S. Supreme court ruled Wednesday that police cannot enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime.”  My buddy had a different view:  “That’s a dead wrong description of an opinion that effectively says the police can do this [a warrantless entry in hot pursuit] 99% of the time and claim good faith the other 1%.”

For most practical purposes in future litigation, that strikes me as pretty much dead on.

As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court held today that the fact that a police officer is in “hot pursuit” of a person believed to have committed a misdemeanor (as opposed to a felony) is not by itself sufficient justification to enter a home with neither consent nor a warrant. The case is Lange v. California, No. 20-18. There are some interesting nuances here, which I will have more to say about later.

Amy Howe had this post yesterday on the then-remaining U.S. Supreme Court cases for the term. With Greer/Gary and Terry decided today, that leaves Lange v. California, No. 20-18, as the only criminal case left for the term. Continue reading . . .

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided Caniglia v. Strom, No. 20-157:

Decades ago, this Court held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433 (1973). In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that police officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community care-taking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. Id., at 441. The question today is whether Cady’s acknowledgment of these “caretaking” duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home. It does not. Continue reading . . .

CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger was featured yesterday (3/29) on a Federalist Society podcast.  The Supreme Court decision in Torres v. Madrid.  The podcast can be accessed using this link. See also this post.

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took up a search-and-seizure case for full briefing and argument. The case involves procedural questions regarding (1) the termination of the criminal case before the seized person can sue for damages and (2) the burden of proof on the existence of exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry. [See update below.] Continue reading . . .

The U.S. Supreme Court today took up two cases for full briefing and argument. United States v. Cooley, No. 19-1414, is an exclusionary rule case involving the authority of tribal officers to stop non-Indians on tribal land. Caniglia v. Strom, No. 20-157, is a civil suit regarding whether the “community caretaking” exception to the search warrant requirement extends to entry into a home. Continue reading . . .

This term the Supreme Court seems to be interested in the law of arrests. Last week, the Court held oral argument in the case of Torres v. Madrid on the subject of what is a “seizure.” (My FedSoc podcast is here.) The common law rules on what is an “arrest” figured prominently in the argument, although there is some question of whether an arrest is necessarily a seizure.

On Monday, in an order that attracted little notice among more politically hot potatoes, the Court took up the case of Lange v. California, No. 20-18. Lange raises the question of whether a person evading arrest for a misdemeanor can thwart the pursuit, at least for the time being, by running into his home.
Continue reading . . .