Arthur Gregory Lange v. California Case Analysis
Summary of the Case
The legal claim concerned the liberty to privacy and the need for a legal basis to enter the premises. Arthur Lange asserted his right to a warrant and claimed an unlawful invasion. A California state court sided with the police officer and ruled that he could follow the man on his property to make an arrest (Lange v. California, 2021). This order was controversial, and the case went to the Supreme Court to resolve the disagreement over the prosecution of a misdemeanor resulting in a home invasion without a warrant.
Bill of Rights Amendment
The common law prohibited officers from entering houses without the owner’s permission to arrest without a warrant, except in certain circumstances founded on a distinct need. It was authorized to enter a home only when necessary to make detention for the most severe crimes or stop a violent disturbance of the peace in public safety (Re, 2018). It is currently the case with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and detentions. It also requires that any search warrants should be issued by a court with probable cause (Bellin, 2019). Since the officer entered the premises without a warrant, this case is directly related to the Fourth Amendment and possible exceptions.
Forcing Factors and Supreme Court Decision
Lange was driving home when a police officer began chasing him after noticing that he was listening to music loudly and honking his horn. When the officer turned on his headlights, Lange had already diverted into his garage and started to close the door (Lange v. California, 2021). The officer did not allow this to occur and entered the garage to conduct an interrogation. Founded on the ensuing interaction, Lange was charged with drink-driving. The Supreme Court has ruled that exceptional, compelling circumstances are necessary for police officers to enter a home without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. Attempting to complete an arrest for a misdemeanor cannot qualify as a proper circumstance (Hardaway, 2020). In her majority opinion, Justice Kagan cited a CAC and detailed the traditional standard law safeguards.
Impact on Society
Since its founding, numerous standard law protections against arrests without a warrant have been eroded. The development of professional police forces and investigative law enforcement has altered the nature of policing. Numerous legal requirements for arrests without a warrant have been softened, giving officers the discretion to make arrests that are often unreasonable (Tokson, 2020). These changes make it critical that the standard law safeguards against home invasions without a warrant remain in place. This decision is crucial because it prevents the police from taking action based solely on their beliefs.
Consent to the Judgment
The Constitution’s Fourth Amendment includes valid causes for actions without a warrant. Expanding this list would mean that more powers were being given to police officers who did not always use them for their excellence. Therefore, the decision will justifiably have a positive effect because it underlines the role of reasonable reasons for trespassing on private property. If a citizen has committed a serious offence, then the intrusion is justified, but in other cases individuals should feel safe.
Private Rights and Alternatives Solutions
The decision affected every citizen’s right to privacy because no one comprehended what could happen. Home invasions and searches always have grave psychological consequences for those affected. If the police can ignore warrants, such incidents will occur more frequently. Apprehending criminals is essential, but one should understand the loss ratio of home invasion to minor crime. There are no alternatives that would not limit the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment rights. Strictly, the Supreme Court could have upheld the lower court’s decision and thus have declared that it was possible to enter the territory of private property without a warrant. Such a decision may seem proper because Lange was driving under the influence of alcohol, and his arrest was rational. In the long-term, however, this would have negative consequences for citizens whose property might be at risk without adequate reasons.
References
Arthur Gregory Lange v. California, 200 U. S. 321, 337 (2021).
Bellin, J. (2019). Fourth Amendment Textualism. Michigan Law Review, 118(2), 233-283.
Hardaway, A. B. (2020). The Supreme Court and the illegitimacy of lawless Fourth Amendment policing. BUL Review, 100, 1193.
Re, R. M. (2018). Fourth amendment fairness. Michigan Law Review, 116(8), 1409-1463.
Tokson, M. (2020). The emerging principles of fourth amendment privacy. Geo. Wash. L. Review, 88, 1-2.