Theįourth Amendment ordinarily requires that a law enforcement officer obtain a judicial warrant before entering a home without permission. 3–16.įourth Amendment precedents counsel in favor of a case-by-case assessment of exigency when deciding whether a suspected misdemeanant’s flight justifies a warrantless home entry. The California Supreme Court denied review.įourth Amendment, pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not always-that is, categorically-justify a warrantless entry into a home. The pursuit of a suspected misdemeanant, the court held, is always permissible under the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. And it stated that Lange could not defeat an arrest begun in a public place by retreating into his home. It concluded that Lange’s failure to pull over when the officer flashed his lights created probable cause to arrest Lange for the misdemeanor of failing to comply with a police signal. The California Court of Appeal also affirmed. The Superior Court denied Lange’s motion, and its appellate division affirmed.
Lange moved to suppress the evidence obtained after the officer entered his garage, arguing that the warrantless entry violated theįourth Amendment. The State charged Lange with the misdemeanor of driving under the influence.
A later blood test showed that Lange’s blood-alcohol content was three times the legal limit. He questioned Lange and, after observing signs of intoxication, put him through field sobriety tests. The officer followed Lange into the garage. Rather than stopping, Lange drove a short distance to his driveway and entered his attached garage. The officer began to follow Lange and soon after turned on his overhead lights to signal that Lange should pull over. Lange drove by a California highway patrol officer while playing loud music and honking his horn. This case arises from a police officer’s warrantless entry into petitioner Arthur Lange’s garage. Common law afforded the home strong protection from government intrusion and did not include a categorical rule allowing warrantless home entry when a suspected misdemeanant flees. When the totality of circumstances (including the flight itself) show an emergency-a need to act before it is possible to get a warrant-the police may act without waiting. Adding a suspect’s flight does not change the situation enough to justify a categorical rule. When a minor offense (and no flight) is involved, police officers do not usually face the kind of emergency that can justify a warrantless home entry. Such exigencies may exist when an officer must act to prevent imminent injury, the destruction of evidence, or a suspect’s escape. Precedent favors a case-by-case assessment of exigency when deciding whether a suspected misdemeanant’s flight justifies a warrantless home entry. Under the Fourth Amendment, the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not always justify a warrantless entry into a home. Alexandra Shapiro, who represented Aiello and Gerardi, said in a statement that her clients “feel greatly vindicated by the Supreme Court’s unanimous decisions in both cases.The Supreme Court vacated. The group’s prison terms had been put on hold while their case was appealed and the decision makes it more likely that this is the end of the case. The court in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas said that the basis for their fraud convictions was faulty. In the second case, which also involved Aiello, the court ruled for him and for developers Louis Ciminelli and Joseph Gerardi and Alain Kaloyeros, formerly one of Cuomo’s top economic development advisers. But Percoco has finished serving his sentence, so the question is just whether the remaining convictions will stay on his record. Roth said a lower court will have to determine whether his client’s two remaining convictions can survive after the Supreme Court’s ruling. In a statement, Percoco’s lawyer, Yaakov Roth, said his client’s prosecution was “an abuse of the federal fraud statutes.” He added: “We are gratified that the court agreed with our position that he was not a public official during the relevant time period, and so he did not violate federal law by acting on behalf of private clients.”
0 kommentar(er)
