When defending clients against unlawful police searches and seizures, one recent U.S. Supreme Court case stands out to me as both influential and underutilized – Lange v. California (2021). I don’t think the defense bar is fully leveraging its implications in the courtroom.
What Happened in Lange v. California?
The case began when a California Highway Patrol officer observed a driver, Arthur Gregory Lange, playing loud music and honking his horn multiple times for no apparent reason. The officer decided to follow Lange, eventually activating his overhead lights to initiate a stop. Lange, however, did not stop, and instead drove into his own driveway and entered his garage. The officer followed him inside, interrupting the garage door as it closed, and ultimately arrested him for traffic-related offenses.
Lange challenged the officer’s warrantless entry, arguing it violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. Prosecutors argued the officer was in “hot pursuit” of a misdemeanor suspect, which they claimed created an “exigent circumstance” justifying entry without a warrant.
The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, held that police pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not automatically justify a warrantless home entry.
Instead, courts must examine the circumstances on a case by case basis to determine whether true exigency exists, such as imminent harm, or destruction of evidence.
Why This Matters for Texas Criminal Defense
The Court’s ruling reinforces a cornerstone principle that your home is your castle. The government cannot intrude without proper authority, and suspected misdemeanors do not create a blanket excuse for officers to enter without a warrant.
Alsbrooks Law recently used this case to protect a client right here in Montgomery County. Police officers, investigating misdemeanor reckless driving allegations, skipped the front door, intruded through a closed gate, and then entered directly into our client’s detached garage without a warrant.
The client was eventually charged with resisting arrest and felony Driving While Intoxicated. However, the supposed offense under investigation at the time of their entry, reckless driving, was only a misdemeanor.
By invoking Lange v. California, we successfully argued that the officers’ actions violated the Fourth Amendment, leading to the dismissal of felony DWI and resisting arrest charges.
Why So Few Attorneys Use Lange v. California
Despite its importance, many defense attorneys overlook Lange. Some rely too heavily on outdated precedents, while others fail to connect the ruling to local cases involving DWI, resisting arrest, or low-level misdemeanors. This creates a missed opportunity to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence and secure dismissals or reductions for clients.
Alsbrooks Law: Protecting Your Rights in Montgomery County
At Alsbrooks Law, we treat the Constitution as more than words on paper. It is the shield that protects our clients from government overreach. Lange v. California is a recent and powerful tool in the arsenal.
Call Alsbrooks Law today to schedule your consultation. We will ensure your rights aren’t trampled by overzealous and intruding police officers.