Source: https://openjurist.org/399/us/30
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:07:59+00:00

Document:
Argued March 4, 5, 1970.
Eberhard P. Deutsch, New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Louise Korns, New Orleans, La., for appellee.
The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the search of the house did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it occurred 'in the immediate vicinity of the arrest' of Donald Vale and was 'substantially contemporaneous therewith * * *.' 252 La., at 1070, 215 So.2d, at 816. We cannot agree. Last Term in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685, we held that when the search of a dwelling is sought to be justified as incident to a lawful arrest, it must constitutionally be confined to the area within the arrestee's reach at the time of his arrest 'the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.' 395 U.S., at 763, 89 S.Ct. at 2040. But even if Chimel is not accorded retroactive effect—a question on which we do not now express an opinion—no precedent of this Court can sustain the constitutional validity of the search in the case before us.
A search may be incident to an arrest "only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest." Shipley v. California, 395 U.S. 818, 819, 89 S.Ct. 2053, 23 L.Ed.2d 732; Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 486, 84 S.Ct. 889, 891, 11 L.Ed.2d 856. If a search of a house is to be upheld as incident to an arrest, that arrest must take place inside the house, cf. Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 32, 46 S.Ct. 4, 6, 70 L.Ed. 145, not somewhere outside—whether two blocks away, James v. Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36, 86 S.Ct. 151, 15 L.Ed.2d 30, twenty feet away, Shipley v. California, supra, or on the sidewalk near the front steps. 'Belief, however well founded, that an article sought is concealed in a dwelling house furnishes no justification for a search of that place without a warrant.' Agnello v. United States, supra, 269 U.S. at 33, 46 S.Ct. at 6. That basic rule 'has never been questioned in this Court.' Stoner v. California, supra, 376 U.S. at 487 n. 5, 84 S.Ct. at 892.
The Louisiana Supreme Court thought the search independently supportable because it involved narcotics, which are easily removed, hidden, or destroyed. It would be unreasonable, the Louisiana court concluded, 'to require the officers under the facts of the case to first secure a search warrant before searching the premises, as time is of the essence inasmuch as the officers never know whether there is anyone on the premises to be searched who could very easily destroy the evidence.' 252 La., at 1070, 215 So.2d, at 816. Such a rationale could not apply to the present case, since by their own account the arresting officers satisfied themselves that no one else was in the house when they first entered the premises. But entirely apart from that point, our past decisions make clear that only in 'a few specifically established and well-delineated' situations, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, may a warrantless search of a dwelling withstand constitutional scrutiny, even though the authorities have probable cause to conduct it. The burden rests on the State to show the existence of such an exceptional situation. Chimel v. California, supra, 395 U.S. at 762, 89 S.Ct. at 2039; United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51, 72 S.Ct. 93, 95, 96 L.Ed. 59; McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456, 69 S.Ct. 191, 193, 93 L.Ed. 153. And the record before us discloses none.
There is no suggestion that anyone consented to the search. Cf. Zap v. United States, 328 U.S. 624, 628, 66 S.Ct. 1277, 1279, 90 L.Ed. 1477. The officers were not responding to an emergency. United States v. Jeffers, supra, 342 U.S. at 52, 72 S.Ct. at 95; McDonald v. United States, supra, 335 U.S. at 454, 69 S.Ct. at 192. They were not in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298—299, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1645—1646, 18 L.Ed.2d 782; Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 615, 81 S.Ct. 776, 779, 5 L.Ed.2d 828; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 15, 68 S.Ct. 367, 369, 92 L.Ed. 436. The goods ultimately seized were not in the process of destruction. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770—771, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1835—1836, 16 L.Ed.2d 908; United States v. Jeffers, supra; McDonald v. United States, supra, 335 U.S. at 455, 69 S.Ct. at 193. Nor were they about to be removed from the jurisdiction. Chapman v. United States, supra; Johnson v. United States, supra; United States v. Jeffers, supra.
The officers were able to procure two warrants for Vale's arrest. They also had information that he was residing at the address where they found him. There is thus no reason, so far as anything before us appears, to suppose that it was impracticable for them to obtain a search warrant as well. Cf. McDonald v. United States, supra, 335 U.S. at 454—455, 69 S.Ct. at 192—193; Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699, 705—706, 68 S.Ct. 1229, 1232—1233, 92 L.Ed. 1663; Johnson v. United States, supra; Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1, 6, 52 S.Ct. 466, 467, 76 L.Ed. 928; Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 358, 51 S.Ct. 153, 158, 75 L.Ed. 374; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 156, 45 S.Ct. 280, 286, 69 L.Ed. 543; cf. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 42, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (opinion of Clark, J.). We decline to hold that an arrest on the street can provide its own 'exigent circumstance' so as to justify a warrantless search of the arrestee's house.
The Louisiana courts committed constitutional error in admitting into evidence the fruits of the illegal search. Shipley v. California, supra, 395 U.S. at 819, 89 S.Ct. at 2054; James v. Louisiana, supra, 382 U.S. at 37, 86 S.Ct. at 151; Ker v. California, supra, 374 U.S. at 30—34, 83 S.Ct. at 1628—1630; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Louisiana Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits only 'unreasonable searches.'* A warrant has never been thought to be an absolute requirement for a constitutionally proper search. Searches, whether with or without a warrant, are to be judged by whether they are reasonable, and, as I said, speaking for the Court in Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 366—367, 84 S.Ct. 881, 882—883, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964), common sense dictates that reasonableness varies with the circumstances of the search. See, e.g., Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949). The Louisiana Supreme Court held not only that the police action here was reasonable but also that failure to conduct an immediate search would have been unreasonable. 252 La. 1056, 1070, 215 So.2d 811, 816. With that view I am in complete agreement, for the following reasons.
The police, having warrants for Vale's arrest, were watching his mother's house from a short distance away. Not long after they began their vigil a car arrived, sounded its horn, and backed into a parking space near the house. The driver did not get out, but instead honked the car horn again. Vale, who had been arrested twice the month before and against whom an indictment for a narcotics offense was then pending, came out of his mother's house and talked to the driver of the car. At the conclusion of the conversation Vale looked both ways, up and down the street, and then went back inside the house. When he reappeared he stopped before going to the car and stood, as one of the officers testified, '(l)ooking back and forth like to see who might be coming or who was in the neighborhood.' He then walked to the car and leaned in.
At this point the police had probable cause to believe that Vale was engaged in a narcotics transfer, and that a supply of narcotics would be found in the house, to which Vale had returned after his first conversation, from which he had emerged furtively bearing what the police could readily deduce was a supply of narcotics, and toward which he hurried after seeing the police. But the police did not know then who else might be in the house. Vale's arrest took place near the house, and anyone observing from inside would surely have been alerted to destroy the stocks of contraband which the police believed Vale had left there. The police had already seen Saucier, the narcotics addict, apparently swallow what Vale had given him. Believing that some evidence had already been destroyed and that other evidence might well be, the police were faced with the choice of risking the immediate destruction of evidence or entering the house and conducting a search. I cannot say that their decision to search was unreasonable. Delay in order to obtain a warrant would have given an accomplice just the time he needed.
In my view, whether a search incident to a lawful arrest is reasonable should still be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 34—36, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1630—1631, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 63—64, 70 S.Ct. 430, 434, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950). For the reasons given above I am convinced that the search here was reasonable, even though Vale had not yet crossed the threshold of the house toward which he was headed.
Moreover, the circumstances here were sufficiently exceptional to justify a search, even if the search was not strictly 'incidental' to an arrest. The Court recognizes that searches to prevent the destruction or removal of evidence have long been held reasonable by this Court. Preston v. United States, supra; McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 455, 69 S.Ct. 191, 193, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). Whether the 'exceptional circumstances' justifying such a search exist or not is a question that may be, as it is here, quite distinct from whether or not the search was incident to a valid arrest. See United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51, 72 S.Ct. 93, 95, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed.2d 436 (1948). It is thus unnecessary to determine whether the search was valid as incident to the arrest under either Chimel v. United States, supra, or under the pre-Chimel standard as interpreted in Shipley v. California, 395 U.S. 818, 89 S.Ct. 2053, 23 L.Ed.2d 732 (1969). It is only necessary to find that, given Vale's arrest in a spot readily visible to anyone in the house and the probable existence of narcotics inside, it was reasonable for the police to conduct an immediate search of the premises.
The Court, however, finds the search here unreasonable. First, the Court suggests that the contraband was not 'in the process of destruction.' None of the cases cited by the Court supports the proposition that 'exceptional circumstances' exist only when the process of destruction has already begun. On the contrary we implied that those circumstances did exist when 'evidence or contraband was threatened with removal or destruction.' Johnson v. United States, supra, 333 U.S. at 15, 68 S.Ct. at 369 (emphasis added). See also Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 615, 81 S.Ct. 776, 779, 5 L.Ed.2d 828 (1961); Hernandez v. United States, 353 F.2d 624 (C.A.9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1008, 86 S.Ct. 1972, 16 L.Ed.2d 1021 (1966).
Second, the Court seems to argue that the search was unreasonable because the police officers had time to obtain a warrant. I agree that the opportunity to obtain a warrant is one of the factors to be weighed in determining reasonableness. Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699, 68 S.Ct. 1229, 92 L.Ed. 1663 (1948); United States v. Rabinowitz, supra, 339 U.S. at 66, 70 S.Ct. at 435 (Black, J., dissenting). But the record conclusively shows that there was no such opportunity here. As I noted above, once the officers had observed Vale's conduct in front of the house they had probable cause to believe that a felony had been committed and that immediate action was necessary. At no time after the events in from of Mrs. Vale's house would it have been prudent for the officers to leave the house in order to secure a warrant.
The Court asserts, however, that because the police obtained two warrants for Vale's arrest there is 'no reason * * * to suppose that it was impracticable for them to obtain a search warrant as well.' The difficulty is that the two arrest warrants on which the Court seems to rely so heavily were not issued because of any present misconduct of Vale's; they were issued because the bond had been increased for an earlier narcotics charge then pending against Vale. When the police came to arrest Vale, they knew only that his bond had been increased. There is nothing in the record to indicate that, absent the increased bond, there would have been probable cause for an arrest, much less a search. Probable cause for the search arose for the first time when the police observed the activity of Vale and Saucier in and around the house.
I do not suggest that all arrests necessarily provide the basis for a search of the arrestee's house. In this case there is far more than a mere street arrest. The police also observed Vale's use of the house as a base of operations for his commercial business, his attempt to return hurriedly to the house on seeing the officers, and the apparent destruction of evidence by the man with whom Vale was dealing. Furthermore the police arrival and Vale's arrest were plainly visible to anyone within the house, and the police had every reason to believe that someone in the house was likely to destroy the contraband if the search were postponed.
Although the state court referred to this statute in the course of its opinion, we do not understand its decision to be grounded on the statute. We therefore dismiss the appeal and treat the papers as a petition for certiorari, which is hereby granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2103.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2103