Stop, frisks and protective sweeps

Question 1

Michigan v Long

Answer 1

Facts
In a rural area, shortly after midnight, Deputies Howell and Lewis observed a car, driven by David Long, traveling erratically and at excessive speed. The car eventually swerved into a ditch. When the officers approached to investigate, they found Long, the car’s sole occupant, who seemed to be under the influence of an intoxicant. Upon Long’s failure to produce the vehicle registration and his movement towards the open door of his vehicle, the deputies noticed a large hunting knife on the floorboard. This observation led them to conduct a protective search of Long and the passenger compartment of his vehicle, where they discovered a pouch of marijuana on the front seat. A further search of the vehicle, including the trunk, revealed more marijuana. Long was arrested for possession of marijuana, and his motion to suppress the evidence found in his car was denied by the trial court.

Issue
The central issue was whether the search of the passenger compartment of Long’s vehicle, conducted without probable cause to arrest but based on the officers’ reasonable belief that the vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to them, violated the Fourth Amendment.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that the protective search of the passenger compartment was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, based on the principles articulated in Terry v. Ohio and other decisions. The Court also addressed jurisdiction, finding no adequate and independent state ground to bar its review.

Question 2

Maryland v Buie

Answer 2

Facts
In the case of Maryland v. Buie, two men committed an armed robbery at a Godfather’s Pizza restaurant in Prince George’s County, Maryland, with one of the robbers wearing a red running suit.
The police obtained arrest warrants for Jerome Edward Buie and his suspected accomplice. While executing Buie’s arrest warrant at his house, the police conducted a protective sweep of the premises. During the sweep, Detective Frolich entered the basement after Buie’s arrest and noticed a red running suit in plain view, which he seized. The running suit was introduced as evidence in Buie’s trial, where he was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and using a handgun in the commission of a felony.

Issue
The central issue in Maryland v. Buie was determining the level of justification required under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for police officers to conduct a warrantless protective sweep of a home incident to an arrest. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the protective sweep that led to the seizure of the red running suit was constitutionally permissible.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. This standard is less stringent than probable cause. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland and remanded the case for further proceedings.