California motorcyclist tailed home by police wins case in Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in favor of a California man who had been arrested in his garage nearly five years ago for driving under the influence.

The motorist had argued that the arrest was a violation of his constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court agreed with the motorist, Arthur Lange, in a unanimous decision, ruling that the police violated the motorist’s rights by continuing to pursue him into his driveway and garage, and arresting him in October 2016.

Lange, a retired real estate broker, was playing music loudly and honking his car repeatedly on a highway in Sonoma County when he passed by California Highway Patrol Officer Aaron Weikert. When Weikert signaled for him to stop, Lange instead pulled into his driveway and entered his garage.

Weikert proceeded to pursue Lange on foot and stopped the garage door from closing, according to the case reports.

In the garage, Weikert said, Lange exhibited signs of alcohol intoxication and the officer then administered a sobriety test that showed Lange with a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit. Weikert then arrested Lange on two misdemeanors: driving under the influence and playing sound at excessive levels.

Lange sought to have the DUI evidence suppressed, saying the officer had no grounds to enter his driveway and garage without a warrant because it constituted an “unreasonable search” under the Fourth Amendment. The Superior Court of California denied the motion and said pursuit of a suspect always qualifies for a warrantless home entry and the Court of Appeals affirmed Lange’s conviction.

“The officer’s warrantless entry was valid because he had probable cause to arrest Lange for the jailable offense of ‘failing to immediately pull over’ when the officer activated his lights,” the Court of Appeals wrote.

The Supreme Court disagreed and said the circumstances did not warrant an arrest.

“On many occasions, the officer will have good reason to enter -- to prevent imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home,” Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote. “But when the officer has time to get a warrant, he must do so — even though the misdemeanant fled.”