Code of Criminal Procedure · Lange v. California

Lange v. California

Lange v. California is covered under Lange v. California and tested on the TCOLE peace officer licensing exam. Cadets typically encounter this topic under "Search & Seizure" on practice exams.

To prove this offense, the State must establish each of the following elements: Pursuit of a misdemeanor suspect; No automatic exigent-circumstances exception; Must show case-specific exigency on totality.

Elements you must prove

  • Pursuit of a misdemeanor suspect
  • No automatic exigent-circumstances exception
  • Must show case-specific exigency on totality

Practice 1 question on this topic

Time yourself, score your run, review missed questions with statute references — Free Practice Pass cadets get limited access.

Start Free Practice

Worked examples

Worked example 1

An officer pursues a misdemeanor suspect on foot into a private home. Without a warrant or consent, this is:

  1. Always lawful — hot pursuit covers everything
  2. Generally unlawful — Lange v. California holds that pursuit of a misdemeanor suspect does not categorically justify warrantless entry; the totality of the circumstances must show genuine exigency Correct
  3. Lawful only at night
  4. Lawful if backup is on the way
Why: Lange rejected a categorical rule for misdemeanor pursuits. Officers must show a true exigent circumstance (imminent harm, destruction of evidence, escape) on the totality of the circumstances; the misdemeanor flight alone is not sufficient.
Statute: Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011 (2021)