Document: 427 U.S. 38 96 S.Ct. 2406 49 L.Ed.2d 300 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Dominga SANTANA and William Alejandro. No. 75-19. Argued April 27, 1976. Decided June 24, Syllabus On the basis of information that respondent Santana had in her possession marked money used to make a heroin "buy" arranged by an undercover agent, police officers went Santana's house where she was standing doorway holding paper bag, but as approached retreated into vestibule they caught her. When tried escape, envelopes containing what later determined be fell floor from found have been carrying some on person. Respondent Alejandro, who sitting front steps, when he off with dropped heroin. After their indictment for possessing intent distribute, respondents moved suppress money. The District Court granted motion ground although probable cause arrests, retreat did not justify warrantless entry "hot pursuit." Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. Santana, while house, "public place" purposes Fourth Amendment, since area any expectation privacy merely visible public exposed view, speech, hearing, touch if completely outside house. Thus, police, concededly do so, sought arrest her, intended place upon violate Amendment. United States v. Watson, 423 411, 820, 46 598. P. 42. 2. By retreating private place, could defeat otherwise proper set place. Since there need act quickly prevent destruction evidence, true pursuit," which extended hue cry "in about (the) streets," thus justified, Warden Hayden, 387 294, 87 1642, 18 782, search incident arrest. Pp. 42-43. Reversed. Frank H. Easterbrook, Washington, D. C., petitioner, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Dennis Eisman, Philadelphia, Pa., Santana. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion 1 * August 16, 1974, Michael Gilletti, officer Philadelphia Narcotics Squad one Patricia McCafferty (from whom purchased narcotics before). told him it would cost $115 "and we will go down Mom dope." 2 Gilletti notified his superiors impending transaction, recorded serial numbers $110 (Sic ) bills, meet at prearranged location. She got car directed drive 2311 North Fifth Street, which, previously informed him, residence. 3 took inside stopping briefly speak Alejandro steps. came out shortly afterwards car. asked heroin; thereupon extracted bra several glassine brownish-white powder gave them him. 4 then stopped car, displayed badge, placed under He were going back Street wanted know was. said, "Mom has money." At this point Sergeant Pruitt other up showed envelope said station. 5 others drove approximately two blocks Street. They saw house1 brown bag hand. pulled within 15 feet van, shouting "police," displaying identification. As approached, 6 followed through open door, catching vestibule. pull away, tilted "two bundles glazed packets white powder" floor. forcibly restrained. empty pockets produced $135, $70 identified Gilletti's 7 An filed Eastern Pennsylvania charging distribution heroin, violation 21 U.S.C. § 841, distribute same section. pleaded guilty. during after arrests. 8 respondents' motion.2 In oral court "(t)here strong Defendant participated transaction McCafferty." However, continued: 9 "One . testified mission Another recover bait Either require warrant, warrant ordinary circumstances warrant." 10 further held "reentry house" support allowing grounds because pursuit" mean "a chase streets." find, however, acted "extreme emergency" conditions. affirmed decision without opinion. II 11 598 (1976), individual Thus first question must decide is whether, 12 While may common law property threshold one's dwelling "private," yard surrounding nonetheless clear cases interpreting Amendment "public" privacy. "What person knowingly exposes public, even own or office, subject protection." Katz States, 389 347, 351, 88 507, 511, 19 576 (1967). Hester states, 265 57, 59, 44 445, 446, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924). perform function approved Watson. 13 only remaining whether thwart We hold not. 782 (1967), recognized right believe armed robber entered few minutes before, weapons. This case, involving pursuit,"3 clearly governed ; here greater than case intrusion much less. correct concluding means sort chase, fact pursuit ended almost soon began render less sufficient Once likewise realistic delay result evidence. See Vale Louisiana, 399 30, 35, 90 1969, 1972, 26 409 (1970). arrested search, arrest, drugs justified. Robinson, 414 218, 94 467, (1973); Chimel California, 395 752, 762-763, 89 2034, 2039, 23 685 (1969). 14 conclude suspect therefore expedient escaping judgment 16 WHITE, concurring. 17 It disputed these circumstances, required enter least force required. longstanding statutory judicial rule majority jurisdictions see ALI, A Model Code Pre-arraignment Procedure 306-314, 696-697 (197, deemed consistent state constitutions, well also Institute's recommended rule. Id., 120.6. I agree My Brother MARSHALL, Post, p. 45, 433, 832, (1976) (dissenting opinion), reinterpret sweep aside widely establish constitutional standard requiring warrants arrests except exigent exist. states are, course, free limit Congress; impose suggested nationwide edict, founded belief superior wisdom Members power divine country's practice date respect unreasonable meaning STEVENS, STEWART joins, 20 Officer obtain home. important note failure juncture both (a) justifiable decision, (b) justifiable, harmless. justified significant risk no longer waited until obtained. seek harmless keep residence surveillance being sought; ventured plain before procured. 22 join BRENNAN dissenting. 24 Earlier Term, expressed view that, absence warrant. opinion). For reason, cannot either each disregards exigency approach home purpose arresting Nor can accept STEVENS' approach, acknowledging notion asserted conduct STEVENS fails consider present solely conduct. remand allow determine attempt circumvent requirement. 25 declines today settle oft-reserved order supra, U.S., 418 n. 6, S.Ct., 825; Gerstein Pugh, 420 103, 113 13, 95 854, 863, 43 54 (1975); Coolidge New Hampshire, 403 443, 480-481, 91 2022, 2045, 29 564 (1971); Jones 357 493, 499-500, 78 1253, 1257, 1514 (1958). Seizing fortuity entering ignores WHITE's repeated advocacy common-law entries, Ante, 43; supra1, 511-512, 1, 2061 (White, J., concurring dissenting), treats simple application somewhat more takes opportunity refine contours decision. correctly read Court's citation "open fields" doctrine (1924), holds persons are outdoors; applies arguably homes "as exposed" outside. But encroachment reserved limited. does suggest alone seizure Indeed, rejection sight made patent, STEWART's phrase, negative implication elaborate hot justification following Cf. 2045. Presumably, touchstone, just liable door doorway. 27 doctrine, then, appears Sui generis, useful touch," 42, though unprotected outdoors. Narrow be, depend justifies property, it. 28 focuses reaches affirmative answer finds "significant obtained." 44. case. block half street Although anyone watching App. testified: "We made. am sure word matter seconds minutes." 51. That undoubtedly reasonable conclusion draw facts arrest; danger evidence destroyed suspects gone obtained ordinarily police's quick return If risk" refers, difference score.2 believe, automatically validate product Had driven remote location created such event necessary, my arrested. 832 (Marshall, dissenting). apparent record why so close aware nearby necessitate prompt time should properly given great deference, cf. Hoffa 385 293, 310, 408, 417, 374 (1966), awesome abuse. permit premises carried pursuant Likewise, those presented create another timed requirement, subsequent unlawful. 469-471, 2040; (1970); 767, 2042, (1969); Abel 362 217, 226 230, 80 683, 690 692, 668 (1960); Rabinowitz, 339 56, 82, 70 430, 442, 653 (1950) (Frankfurter, dissenting); Lefkowitz3, 285 452, 52 420, 424, 76 877 (1932). Accordingly, consideration sole creating Strohm seen before. indicated directly step forward put outside, backward protest seizures. Government raise issue below consequently reach based "exigencies situation," 298, 1645, use term involve sense normally understood. phrase Johnson 333 10, 7, 367, 370, 92 436 (1948), element usually involved WHITE us bequeath our duty interpret Constitution Congress. response similar argument Watson: "(T)he deference invokes contrary principles analysis practiced Marbury Madison, Cranch 137, 60 (1803) (I)t settled mere existence statutes practice, long standing, defense unconstitutional practice. '(N)o acquires vested protected use, span covers entire national indeed predates it.' Walz Tax Comm'n, 397 664, 678, 1409, 1416, 697 Almeida-Sanchez 413 266, 93 2535, 37 596 Roe Wade, 410 113, 705, 35 147 Furman Georgia, 408 238, 2726, 33 346 (1972); Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 506 (1964). Our weightier suggests: reasoned shows constitutionally deficient, obligation Constitution, Congress." 837 opinion) (footnote omitted). assume suggesting justifying always regardless trail whenever Because cause, error deciding

Category: 0