Search of the Home Flashcards
Warden v. Hayden (S. Ct. 1967) (If a crime has just been committed and the police reasonably believe the suspect is in a certain house, may the police enter and search the home without a warrant to ensure that there are no weapons that could pose a threat to the police and to make certain that only one person in the home meets the description of the suspect?)
The Fourth Amendment permits the police to act without a warrant if delay would endanger their lives or the lives of others.
Vale v. Louisiana (S. Ct. 1970) (Does an arrest on the street generally provide justification for a warrantless search of the arrestee’s house?)
An arrest on the street, without more, does not provide justification for a warrantless search of the arrestee’s house.
Illinois v. McArthur (S. Ct. 2001)(Is a temporary seizure lawful if it is supported by probable cause, limited in nature, and tailored reasonably to secure law enforcement needs while also protecting privacy interests?)
A temporary seizure is lawful if it is supported by probable cause, limited in nature, and tailored reasonably to secure law enforcement needs while also protecting privacy interests.
U.S. v. Grubbs (S. Ct. 2006) (Does the Fourth Amendment categorically ban anticipatory warrants?)
No. To issue an anticipatory warrant, a magistrate must determine that there is probable cause that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found when the warrant is executed. There must also be probable cause to believe that the triggering condition will happen, and probable cause to believe that if the triggering condition occurs, that contraband will be found in a particular place.
Payton v. New York (S. Ct. 1980) (Can the police enter a suspect’s home without a warrant to make a routine felony arrest?)
Absent exigent circumstances, the police may not enter a person’s home to make an arrest without a warrant.
U.S. v. Santana (S. Ct. 1976) (Using marked money, police officers made an undercover heroin buy from a third party who, upon taking money from the officers, entered “Mom Santana’s” house and emerged with heroin. Officers then arrested the third party and returned to Santana’s house where they identified themselves as police officers, entered the house after Santana fled into it from the porch, and, after ordering her to empty her pockets, discovered some of the marked money. The search was done without a warrant.)
Once a defendant is exposed to public view in her doorway, her act of retreating into her house does not thwart an otherwise proper arrest by officers who pursued her inside.
State v. Menz (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) (The police got a call about possible domestic violence taking place within the home. When the police arrived, the door was open, the T.V. was on, and no one was answering their calls. So, they entered the home and discovered marijuana plants in the upstairs bedroom.)
If the police reacting to an anonymous tip of domestic violence find normal circumstances — for example, the house is dark, the front door is closed, no occupant responds to knocking — the tip is not corroborated and entry is not permitted. On the other hand, if the police find abnormal circumstances — for example, the front door is open on a winter night, lights are on, a TV is playing, yet no one answers the door — the tip is corroborated and entry is permitted. In neither case are the police allowed to enter solely by virtue of an unreliable anonymous tip. The search includes all areas in which an injured person might be.
Mincey v. Arizona (S. Ct. 1978) (Where a homicide occurs, may police search the scene of the crime without first obtaining a warrant?)
The fact that a homicide has occurred does not justify making an exception to the rule that police must obtain a warrant prior to searching a suspect’s home.
Ryburn v. Huff (S. Ct. 2012) (Did the police officers violate the Fourth Amendment by entering a home without a warrant when the homeowner exhibited unusual behavior leading the officers to believe they were in danger?)
No. In an unsigned, per curiam opinion, the Court disagreed with the lower court’s decision and held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation on the facts presented by this case. The Court stated that the Fourth Amendment permits the police to enter a residence if an officer has a reasonable basis for concluding that there is an imminent threat of danger. The Court determined that reasonable police officers could have come to the conclusion that the violence was imminent and that they were therefore permitted to enter a home without a warrant. “[T]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.”
Hudson v. Michigan (S. Ct. 2006) (The police obtained a warrant to search Hudson’s (defendant) home. The police arrived at Hudson’s home, announced their presence, but only waited three to five seconds before entering the house. Upon searching Hudson’s home, the police found drugs and firearms which Hudson moved to suppress at trial, arguing that the police did not wait long enough before entering his home in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.)
The exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of the knock and announce rule.
Kentucky v. King (S. Ct. 2011) (Does the exigent circumstances rule to the Fourth Amendment allow law enforcement officials to lawfully gain entry into a residence without a warrant after first knocking at the front door and announcing their presence in an attempt to prevent occupants from destroying evidence?)
The exigent circumstances rule to the Fourth Amendment allows law enforcement officials to lawfully gain entry into a residence without a warrant after first knocking at the front door and announcing their presence in an attempt to prevent occupants from destroying evidence.
What is needed to make an arrest in public?
Probable cause. No warrant or exigent circumstance is necessary.
To forcibly enter a home, police must have:
a search warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home to make a “routine” (non-exigent) arrest.
The Knock and Announce requirement may be discarded when the police have:
(1) chased the person named in the warrant into his home in hot pursuit;
(2) have reasonable suspicion that evidence may be imminently destroyed;
(3) have a reasonable suspicion that there is a risk of harm to the officers or others or that it is futile.
This requires a case by case analysis.
The search of a home requires a warrant, unless:
(1) there are exigent circumstances, (2) the police are in hot pursuit a fleeing victim, (3) evidence is being destroyed, (4) there is a need to prevent a felon’s escape, (5) there is a risk of harm to the police, (6) there is a risk of harm to others (public safety, domestic violence, neighborhood care-taking)
