Whether a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor offense violates the Fourth Amendment where the offense did not occur in the presence of an officer

QUESTION PRESENTED In four precedents between 1885 and 1976, this Court recognized the “ancient common-law rule” that an officer could make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor only if the offense was committed in his presence. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 418 (1976); see Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 182, 156-57 (1925); John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1900); Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U.S. 487, 49899 (1885). Citing these precedents, the Court in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) referred to that common-law rule yet again. Jd. at 340-41. But, ina footnote, the Court declined to “speculate whether the Fourth Amendment entails an ‘in the presence’ requirement for purposes of misdemeanor arrests.” Jd. at 340 n.11. After Atwater, the Court has stated that the common law provides the “baseline for our own day,” such that the Fourth “Amendment ‘must provide at a minimum the degree of protection it afforded when it was adopted.” Lange v. California, 594 U.S. 295, 309 (2021) (quoting United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 411 (2012)). The question presented is the one left open in Atwater: Whether a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor offense violates the Fourth Amendment where the offense did not occur in the presence of an officer. i