Document: 333 U.S. 10 68 S.Ct. 367 92 L.Ed. 436 JOHNSONv.UNITED STATES. No. 329. Argued Dec. 18, 1947. Feb. 2, 1948. Mr. James Skelly Wright, for petitioner. Robert Erdahl, of Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner was convicted on four counts charging violation federal narcotic laws.1 The only question which brings case here is whether it lawful, without a warrant any kind, to arrest petitioner and search her living quarters. 2 Taking Government's version disputed events, decision would rest these facts: 3 At about 7:30 p.m. Detective Lieutenant Belland, an officer Seattle police force detail, received information from confidential informer, who also known user, that unknown persons were smoking opium in Europe Hotel. informer taken back hotel interview manager, but he returned at once saying could smell burning hallway. Belland communicated with agents between 8:30 9 o'clock went such agents. All experienced work recognized strong odor them distinctive unmistakable. led Room 1. officers did not know occupying room. They knocked voice inside asked there. 'Lieutenant Belland,' reply. There slight delay, some 'shuffling or noise' room then defendant opened door. said, 'I want talk you little bit.' She then, as describes it, 'stepped acquiescently admitted us.' He here.' denied there smell. Then consider yourself under because we are going room.' turned up incriminating apparatus, latter being warm, apparently recent use. This evidence District Court refused suppress before trial over defendant's objection trial. Conviction resulted Circuit Appeals affirmed.2 4 challenged home rights secured common others, by Fourth Amendment Constitution. Government defends legally justifiable, more particularly incident what urges lawful person. I. 5 Constitution United States provides: 6 'The right people be secure their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches seizures, shall violated, no Warrants issue, upon probable cause, supported Oath affirmation, describing place searched, things seized.' 7 Entry quarters, beginning search, demanded color office. It granted submission authority rather than understanding intentional waiver constitutional right. Cf. Amos v. States, 255 313, 41 266, 65 654. 8 time entry possessed magistrate might have found cause issuing warrant. We cannot sustain contention, erroneously made, strength Taylor 286 1, 52 466, 76 951, odors sufficient constitute grounds search. That held alone do authorize If h e presence testified finds affiant qualified odor, one sufficiently identify forbidden substance, this has never basis insufficient justify issuance Indeed very well most persuasive character. point Amendment, often grasped zealous officers, denies law enforcement support usual inferences reasonable men draw evidence. Its protection consists requiring those drawn neutral detached instead judged engaged competitive enterprise ferreting out crime.3 Any assumption magistrate's disinterested determination issue will making reduce nullity leave people's homes discretion officers.4 Crime, even privacy one's own is, course, grave concern society, allows crime reached proper showing. thrust themselves into concern, individual society chooses dwell security freedom surveillance. When must reasonably yield rule, decided judicial officer, policeman agent. exceptional circumstances which, balancing need effective privacy, may contended dispensed with. But case. No reason offered obtaining except inconvenience delay necessary prepare papers present magistrate. These convincing reasons and, circumstances, certainly enough bypass requirement. suspect fleeing likely take flight. permanent premises, movable vehicle. contraband threatened removal destruction, perhaps fumes suppose disappear. they capable reduced possession presentation court. existence adequate testimony effect perish getting 11 excused duty presenting magistrate, difficult think should required. II. 12 contends, however, valid arrest. alleged ground vai dity requires examination facts determine itself lawful. Since warrant, if committed arresting felony had believe guilty.5 13 Government, effect, concedes until entered sole occupant.6 points specifically, referring just entry, 'For several been den.' And says, '* * when believing she thus illicitly narcotic.' Thus quite properly stakes arrest, informer's tip knowledge room, gained after, wholly of, home. therefore observations after obtained admission authority, made arrest.7 14 obliged same do. An gaining access private quarters his office personifies intrusion. other rule undermine 'the effects,'8 obliterate fundamental distinctions our form government, where law, police-state law. 15 Reversed. 16 CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK, REED BURTON dissent. Two charged § 2553(a) Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 2553(a), U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, two Narcotic Drugs Import Export Act, amended, 21 174, 174. Cir., 162 F.2d 562. In Lefkowitz, 285 452, 464, 420, 423, 877, 82 A.L.R. 775, said: informed deliberate determinations magistrates empowered warrants seizures permissible preferred hurried action others happen make arrests. Security unlawful attained resort reliance caution sagacity petty while acting excitement attends capture accused crime. *' 'Belief, however founded, article sought concealed dwelling house, furnishes justification notwithstanding unquestionably showing cause.' Agnello 269 20, 33, 46 4, 6, 70 145, 51 409. Washington State Symes, 20 Wash. 484, 55 P. 626; Lindsey, 192 356, 73 P.2d 738; Krantz, 24 Wash.2d 350, 164 453; Robbins, 25 110, 169 246. determines validity arrests Di Re, 332 581, 222. brief states presented 'whether possessing prepared thereto opium, unmistakably detected traced pungent, identifiable emanating knew, arrested her, person suggests 'In sense, 'hot pursuit'. However, find element pursuit' flight, completely surrounded knew presence, claims denial bed time, attempt escape. Nor seem meet requirements 'Washington Uniform Law Fresh Pursuit.' Session Laws 1943, ch. 261. Gouled 298, 302, 303, 261, 263, 647, 'It possible add emphasis framers court (in Boyd 116 616, 524, 29 746, Weeks 232 383, 34 341, 58 652, L.R.A.1915B, 834, Ann.Cas.1915C, 1177, Silverthorne Lumber Co. 251 385, 40 182, 64 319 (24 1426)) declared importance political liberty welfare country due observance guaranteed (Fourth Fifth) Amendments. decisions cited is: indispensable 'full enjoyment personal security, liberty, property'; regarded essence liberty; guaranty important imperative guaranties citizen—the jury, writ habeas corpus, process repeatedly amendments receive liberal construction, so prevent stealthy encroachment 'gradual depreciation' them, imperceptible practice courts well-intentioned, mistakenly overzealous, executive officers.'

Category: 0