Code of Criminal Procedure · U.S. Supreme Court, 2021
Lange v. California
Lange v. California is a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision. This page summarizes key points and works through practice questions for Texas peace officer exam preparation.
Key points
- Pursuit of a misdemeanor suspect into a home
- No categorical rule: misdemeanor flight does not always justify warrantless entry
- Officers need case-specific exigency on the totality (e.g., imminent harm, destruction of evidence, escape); if there is time to get a warrant, they must get one
Learn more about this topic
Time yourself, score your run, review missed questions with statute references — Free Practice Pass cadets get limited access.
Worked examples
Worked example 1
An officer pursues a misdemeanor suspect on foot into a private home. Without a warrant or consent, this is:
- Always lawful — hot pursuit covers everything
- Not automatically lawful — under Lange v. California, misdemeanor flight does not always justify warrantless entry; officers need case-specific exigency on the totality, or a warrant if there is time to get one Correct
- Lawful only at night
- Lawful if backup is on the way
Why: Lange rejected a categorical rule for misdemeanor pursuits. Officers will often have good reason to enter — to prevent imminent harm, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home — but they must show that on the totality of the circumstances; when there is time to get a warrant, they must do so.
Statute: Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011 (2021)