EDITORIAL: Will the high court eviscerate the Fourth Amendment?

The idea is to avoid allowing a dangerous felon to escape or to potentially destroy evidence simply by beating pursuing police officers to his domicile.

But as is often the case with constitutional “exceptions,” if you give police agencies an inch, they’ll take a mile. Thus the Supreme Court is poised to hear a case in coming weeks that would greatly expand the “hot pursuit” doctrine and, with it, the power of the state to avoid the protections afforded American citizens under the Fourth Amendment.

The matter involves Arthur Lange of Sonoma, California, who drew the attention of police in 2016 when he was driving home with his car stereo blaring. After Mr. Lange honked his horn, a police officer pulled in behind him intending to initiate a traffic stop, according to news reports.

But the officer didn’t turn on his overhead lights until Mr. Lange entered into his driveway, activated his garage remote and pulled in. Mr. Lange told the authorities that he never saw the police flashers. Meanwhile, the officer left his vehicle, walked onto the property and put his foot under the lowering garage door to prevent it from closing. The officer insisted “he could smell alcohol on Mr. Lange’s breath,” according to Courthouse News Service, and arrested him for driving under the influence.

Mr. Lange’s attorney attempted to have the evidence suppressed because the officer didn’t have a warrant, but the California courts upheld his conviction under the “hot pursuit” principle even though the offenses involved were misdemeanors. “Because the officer was in hot pursuit of a suspect whom he had probable cause to arrest for violation of (a misdemeanor),” a state court held, “the officer’s warrantless entry into Lange’s driveway and garage were lawful.”

Expanding the exigent factors exception to include circumstances involving low-level offenders would have obvious consequences — none of them good in regard to the Fourth Amendment. Among other things, Mr. Lange’s petition before the Supreme Court notes, it would yield “unjustified results, allowing an officer investigating a minor offense to forcibly enter a home even where there is no real emergency — and even where, as here, the officer initially intends only to question a suspect or issue a citation.”

If police are free to ignore the Fourth Amendment while rushing to arrest a jaywalker or speeder, the Bill of Rights will be on life support. The high court should overturn the California court’s decision to ensure a narrow reading of the “hot pursuit” exception.