Without reading I don't see the issue. The driver is legally "seized" and is attempting flight. Unless CA limits forcible entry to felonies only, I'm failing to see a problem. The crime he was seized for would be fleeing and eluding. Smelling the EOTH during the investigation is separate and will probably stand valid.
I'm not really sure what point the court is trying to clarify here. Maybe the shock the legal world and rule that the police can't arrest someone for fleeing a traffic stop.
At what point is a police officer authorized to force entry into a home? It wasn't until after forced entry, that a crime was discovered.
That is the question, that complicates the traffic stop.
We would all agree you are correct, if the incident happened along the road somewhere.
What case says the "house" becomes "base" where the police can't "tag" the "runner"? If he failed to yield and fled the traffic stop that is the arrest-able offense...at least in MD. The DUI comes as the fruit of the "tag". If the court rules the "tag" happened after the "runner" got to the "base" that is messy. It encourages the "runner" to ignore commands and make it to the "base" and you are "safe".
Should they institute "playground" rules where you can only stand on "base" for a 30 count?
Traffic offenses, unless otherwise stated, are Misd. in MD. Can the police not chase someone in fresh pursuit for Misd? Including into a home?
I'll speculate it is possible the the police might not realize it is the persons home. Would that change something? Maybe he fled to a house he happens to see the door open to. Does that mean the police need to abandon their attempt to "tag" the runner?
We'll see.
Yep, with ACB it'll still be a 5/4 court
I don’t get it. It’s like Roberts decided to turn into an attention white all of a sudden.
He's more concerned with the court's "legacy" and believes more in stare decisis than actually ruling correctly.
I don’t get it. It’s like Roberts decided to turn into an attention white all of a sudden.
Without reading I don't see the issue. The driver is legally "seized" and is attempting flight. Unless CA limits forcible entry to felonies only, I'm failing to see a problem. The crime he was seized for would be fleeing and eluding. Smelling the EOTH during the investigation is separate and will probably stand valid.
I'm not really sure what point the court is trying to clarify here. Maybe the shock the legal world and rule that the police can't arrest someone for fleeing a traffic stop.
Lange v. California (20-18)
Under the Fourth Amendment, pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not always or categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry into a home.
I haven’t read anything but your post……
So now cops, in the heat of a chase, have to figure out misdemeanor vs felony for fresh pursuit?!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I haven’t read anything but your post……
So now cops, in the heat of a chase, have to figure out misdemeanor vs felony for fresh pursuit?!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
9-0, folks.