Issues & Insights

Lange V. California Puts Tyranny In Play, And Your Rights At Risk

U.S. Supreme Court. Photo: Joe Ravi, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en).

The 4th Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures has long been on the cutting edge between liberty and government abuse, which arose from an important episode in American history.

When the English Crown created Writs of Assistance — broad search warrants enabling customs officials to enter any business or home in the colonies without advance notice, probable cause, or reason — James Otis resigned his post as advocate general in the vice-admiralty court to protest the violation of the celebrated English maxim, “Every man’s house is his castle.” Otis then turned around and represented, without charge, Boston merchants’ efforts to stop the writs.

For five hours, he put forward arguments that “Government … is above all things to provide for the security, the quiet and happy enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. There is no one act which a government can have a right to make, that does not tend to [its] advancement.”

Since “One of the most essential branches of … liberty is the freedom of one’s house,” the writs of assistance were beyond the power of Parliament to impose, because “Everyone with this writ may be a tyrant.” Consequently, he said “I will to my dying day oppose … all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other, as this Writ of Assistance is.”

John Adams later declared that “the child independence was then and there born.”  

Over two centuries later, we still face many “search and seizure” issues that put our privacy and security at risk. For instance, Edward Snowden revealed government spying on our citizens. The DIA has admitted tracking innocent people’s movements without warrants since the Obama administration, claiming that because they are not law enforcement, they are exempt from 4th Amendment restrictions. The ability of injured parties’ power to sue officers involved for damages suffered in unlawful searches is not a dead letter.

But Lange v. California, whose oral argument were made last week before the Supreme Court, highlights the particular importance of the Exclusionary Rule ban on evidence gathered in violation of the 4th Amendment, an essential protection of our privacy and security rights. At issue is an exception that could swallow the rule.

As described by the Los Angeles Times, it would “carve out yet another exception — allowing police to enter someone’s home without a warrant when an officer has probable cause to believe that even a minor offense has been committed.”

Retired realtor Arthur Lange had been observed playing loud music and honking his horn as he drove to his home in Sonoma. A California Highway Patrol officer had followed him home, then turned on his flashing red lights just as Lange prepared to pull into his driveway. Lange claimed not to see that. He proceeded into his garage (less than 100 feet). Then as the garage door was closing, the officer stopped it with his foot, then entered the garage. He then observed signs that Lange was intoxicated.

Lange sought to have that evidence suppressed as the result of an “unreasonable” warrantless search. California courts ruled the other way, as a result of “exigent circumstances,” emergencies where an officer must act quickly, as in “hot pursuits” of suspects.

But failing to stop for police lights (which Lange claimed he did not see) is a misdemeanor. The California Appeals Court held that it provided sufficient probable cause for entering the garage without a warrant. But if such a minor (and contested) misdemeanor is sufficient to qualify for an “exigent circumstances” exemption, it is hard to see what protection the 4th Amendment still offers citizens.

That concern was clear to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who “worried aloud that the mere fact that the suspect flees into a home in an effort to avoid arrest would create an emergency that would justify allowing police to enter the home without a warrant.”

That is perhaps unsurprising, given that an amicus brief from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers identified about 150 cases roughly analogous to Lange’s, with underlying crimes including public urination and failing to pay a cab fare, which make a mockery of “exigent circumstances.”  

Justice Neil Gorsuch had a particularly cogent response. He noted that “We live in a world in which everything has been criminalized.” Consequently, who does not stand at risk of having his rights violated at the discretion of any police officer?

Further, he pointed out that the common law understanding upon which the 4th Amendment was constructed didn’t give police “the power to enter the home in pursuit of any and all misdemeanor crimes,” so “why would we create a rule that is less protective than what everyone understands to be the case of the Fourth Amendment as original matter?”

In other words, why don’t we take the 4th Amendment seriously, rather than look for ways to eviscerate it?

Gorsuch here is aligned with the Institute for Justice’s brief in the Lange case, which said “The Amendment was adopted not to make life easier for police, but to protect our security.” Further, failing to overturn the Appellate Court decision “would blow a massive hole in the warrant requirement, leaving us all far less secure as a result.”

Lange v. California is an important case, with the potential to put every American’s 4th Amendment rights in serious jeopardy. If the current California precedent stands, our own government’s warrantless invasiveness will not be much different from under Britain’s Writs of Assistance. And none of us want to live where every police officer “may be a tyrant,” before which essential rights can easily fall.

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. 

Will You Help Us In The Fight For Free Speech?

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.

Share

Subscribe to Issues & Insights via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to I&I and you can receive notifications of new articles in your email. It’s simple, and free.

Join 5,086 other subscribers

We Could Use Your Help

Will you help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left? Issues & Insights is published by a team of volunteers who believe in free speech and in quality journalism. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on the Tip Jar above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

%d bloggers like this: