Another victory for the Fourth Amendment

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: June 24, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------


** Victory: Supreme Court Rules That ‘Hot Pursuit’ Over Driver’s Loud Music Doesn’t Justify Warrantless Home Invasion
------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a victory for the Fourth Amendment right of homeowners to be protected against warrantless home invasions ([link removed]) , the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “hot pursuit” of persons suspected of minor offenses does not alone justify a warrantless home invasion by law enforcement.

The Court’s opinion ([link removed]) in Lange v. State of California found that the Fourth Amendment did not allow police to engage in “hot pursuit” of a suspect over a dubious traffic infraction, following a driver into his garage and questioning him without a warrant in order to issue him a citation for honking his horn repeatedly and blasting his music while driving. In their amicus brief ([link removed]) in Lange, Rutherford Institute attorneys argued that the sanctity of the home must prevail over any interest police might have in engaging in “hot pursuit” of citizens suspected of committing nonviolent misdemeanors.

Affiliate attorneys Michael Kimberly, Ethan Townsend, and Brett Meyerhoff of McDermott, Will & Emery LLP in Washington, D.C. assisted The Rutherford Institute in advancing the arguments ([link removed]) in Lange.

"Police have been given free rein to pull anyone over for a variety of dubious reasons, resulting in drivers being stopped for windows that are too heavily tinted, for driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, and leaving a parked car door open for too long,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “To allow police to pursue drivers and carry out warrantless invasions of their homes merely for daring to play their car music too loudly or honking their horns flies in the face of everything the Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect.”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

Driving back to his home in a neighborhood in Sonoma, Calif., on an evening in October 2016, Arthur Lange had the music in his vehicle turned up loud and his windows open. He also honked his horn several times as he was driving. Taking notice of the sounds coming from Lange’s vehicle and believing these might constitute minor misdemeanor infractions punishable only by small fines, a highway patrol officer followed him all the way home. Not until Lange had pulled into his driveway and parked his car in the garage did the officer activate his overhead lights to signify that he wanted Lange to pull over. The officer pulled into the driveway after Lange had parked his car and the garage door began closing. The officer then exited his vehicle, approached the closing garage, thrust his foot under the door, causing it to reopen, and entered the garage unannounced and uninvited. He proceeded to question Lange. After Lange produce his license and registration and answered more questions, the
officer stated that he smelled alcohol on Lange and demanded he submit to sobriety testing. Lange was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated.

In court, Lange argued that the officer’s warrantless entry into his garage violated the Fourth Amendment. The California courts rejected Lange’s claim, ruling that the entry into the residence was allowed under the “hot pursuit” exception to the warrant requirement. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Rutherford Institute attorneys warned ([link removed]) against allowing police to use the “hot pursuit” exception to the warrant requirement as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently held ([link removed]) that the “hot pursuit” exception does not categorically authorize police to enter a home without a warrant when the suspected offense is a misdemeanor.

The opinion ([link removed]) and amicus brief ([link removed]) in Lange v. State of California are available at www.rutherford.org.

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fsupreme-court-rules-that-hot-pursuit-exception-doesnt-justify-warrantless-home-invasion-overdrivers-loud-music Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fsupreme-court-rules-that-hot-pursuit-exception-doesnt-justify-warrantless-home-invasion-overdrivers-loud-music)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2021 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])