Document: 494 U.S. 325 110 S.Ct. 1093 108 L.Ed.2d 276 MARYLAND, Petitionerv.Jerome Edward BUIE. No. 88-1369. Argued Dec. 4, 1989. Decided Feb. 28, 1990. Syllabus Following a Maryland armed robbery by two men, one of whom was wearing red running suit, police obtained arrest warrants for respondent Buie and his suspected accomplice executed the warrant at house. After arrested upon emerging from basement, officers entered basement "in case there someone else" seized suit lying in plain view. The trial court denied Buie's motion to suppress introduced into evidence, convicted weapons offense. intermediate appellate affirmed denial suppression motion, but State Court Appeals reversed, ruling that inadmissible because officer who conducted "protective sweep" did not have probable cause believe serious demonstrable potentiality danger existed. Held: Fourth Amendment permits properly limited protective sweep conjunction with an in-home when searching possesses reasonable belief based on specific articulable facts area be swept harbors individual posing those scene. Michigan v. Long, 463 1032, 1049-1050, 103 3469, 3480-3481, 77 1201; Terry Ohio, 392 1, 21, 88 1868, 1879, 20 889. Pp. 330-337. (a) In holding that, respectively, on-the-street "frisk" roadside search automobile's passenger compartment were despite absence or cause, Long balanced interests persons they dealing against immediate protecting themselves posed hidden weapons. Here, had analogous interest taking steps assure house harboring other dangerous could unexpectedly launch attack, fact expectation privacy rooms examined prior does mean such immune entry. No required, as incident could, precautionary matter without suspicion, look closets spaces immediately adjoining place which attack launched. Beyond however, just must which, taken together rational inferences facts, would reasonably prudent believing danger. Such is full premises, may extend only cursory inspection where person found. lasts no longer than necessary dispel suspicion any event it takes complete depart premises. 331-336. (b) Chimel California, 395 752, 89 2034, 23 685—which held warrant, justifiable beyond arrestee's within he might weapon—is distinguished. First, concerned full-blown, top-to-bottom entire evidence crime made, more intrusion contemplated sweep. Second, justification threat arrestee, safety house, unseen third parties 336-337. (c) applied unnecessarily strict standard requiring justified cause. remanded application proper standard. 1099-1100. 314 Md. 151, 550 A.2d 79, vacated remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. post, p. 337, 339, filed concurring opinions. BRENNAN, dissenting opinion, MARSHALL, joined, 339. Dennis M. Sweeney, Baltimore, Md., petitioner. Lawrence S. Robbins United States, amicus curiae, supporting petitioner, special leave Court. John L. Kopolow, respondent. Eugene D. Tavris, Deputy Dist. Atty., Appellate Committee Cal. Attys. Ass'n, support Justice WHITE 1 A quick protect others. It narrowly confined visual places hiding. this we decide what level required Fourteenth Amendments before officers, while effecting suspect home pursuant conduct warrantless all part view during should been suppressed respondent's 166, 86 (1988). We conclude permit undertaken here if "possesse[d] 'specific warrant[ed]' believing," 1201 (1983) (quoting 1880, 889 (1968)), harbored accordingly vacate judgment below remand 2 * On February 3, 1986, men committed Godfather's Pizza restaurant Prince George's County, Maryland. One robbers suit. That same day, County Jerome robbery, Lloyd Allen. placed under surveillance. 3 5, Buie. They first department secretary telephone verify home. spoke female first, then himself. Six seven proceeded Once inside, fanned out through second floors. Corporal James Rozar announced "freeze" so come up surprise officers. With service revolver drawn, twice shouted ordering anyone down out. When voice asked calling, three times: "this police, show me your hands." App. 5. Eventually, pair hands appeared around bottom stairwell emerged basement. He arrested, searched, handcuffed Rozar. Thereafter, Detective Joseph Frolich there. Id., 14. noticed stack clothing it. 4 stating part: "The man comes don't know how many people are charged offense." 19. trial. jury deadly weapon using handgun commission felony. 5 Special court's motion. stated go else pose 72 Md.App. 562, 571-572, 531 1290, 1295 (1987). 6 "Traditionally, sanctity person's home—his castle requires invade except most exigent circumstances. But once lawfully home, their measured reasonableness. . [I]f reason arrestee accomplices still large, something less suspicion—should sufficient justify additional investigate possibility presence." 575-576, A.2d, 1297 (emphasis original). 7 reversed 4-to-3 vote. 79 acknowledged "when slight, brief stop frisk public street, prevention substantial, enough pass constitutional muster," id., 159, 83. court, involved, exceptions requirement few, held: "[T]o government ' "a danger" exists." 159-160, 83 (citation omitted). went find satisfied probable-cause requirement. 165-166, 86. granted certiorari, 490 1097, 109 2447, 104 1001 (1989). II 8 disputed until point right, authority anywhere found, including "If citizen's participation felony persuade judicial justified, constitutionally require him open doors law." Payton New York, 445 573, 602-603, 100 1371, 1388-1389, 63 639 (1980). There also dispute Frolich's entry lawful, seizure crime, lawful Amendment. See Arizona Hicks, 480 321, 326, 107 1149, 1153, 94 347 issue legally enter see 9 Petitioner, Maryland, argues general reasonableness balancing test, permitted whenever make violent crime. As alternative suggested bright-line rule, contends sweeps fall ambit doctrine (1968), valid risk others curiae State, Terry-type reasonable, officer, met here. Respondent unless exigencies situation render objectively reasonable. According Buie, has shown neither circumstances nor unforeseen arose excuse failure obtain believed further even inapplicable, relaxing If sufficient, individualized suspicion—specific, premises specific, III 10 goes saying bars unreasonable searches seizures, Skinner Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 489 602, 1402, Our cases determining reasonableness, individual's its promotion legitimate governmental interests. States Villamonte-Marquez, 462 579, 588, 2573, 2579, 22 (1983); Delaware Prouse, 440 648, 654, 99 1391, 1396, 59 660 (1979). Under office generally issued contexts, required. Skinner, supra, U.S., 619-620, S.Ct., 1414; Griffin Wisconsin, 483 868, 873, 3164, 3167, 97 709 (1987); Jersey T.L.O., 469 325, 340-341, 105 733, 742-743, 720 (1985); 20, 1879. 11 instructive present purposes. tested Amendment's proscription involves "an rubric conduct—necessarily swift action predicated on-the-spot observations beat—which historically been, practical be, subjected procedure." Ibid. " 'no ready test need invasion entails.' 1879 Camara Municipal San Francisco, 387 523, 536-537, 87 1727, 1734-1735, 18 930 (1967)). Applying although "constitutes severe, though brief, cherished personal security," 24-25, 1881-1882, weighed "need law enforcement prospective victims violence situations lack arrest." 24, 1881. therefore authorized patdown warranted belief, "specific facts," mere "inchoate unparticularized 'hunch,' 27, 1883, "that individual," ibid. 12 (1983), principles context encounter: "[T]he automobile, areas hidden, permissible warrant' gain control weapons." 3480-3481 Terry, 1880). expressly rejected contention restricted preventative detained suspect. 1047, 3479. sense, automobile 13 ingredients apply balance struck case. Possessing entitled over, particular entering yet searched. 14 remaining with, able of, fatally used them. instant case, being, attack. great as, greater than, investigatory encounter. occurs police-citizen confrontation escalated arrest. sweep, contrast, adjunct step custody purpose prosecuting Moreover, unlike encounter street along highway, puts disadvantage being adversary's "turf." An ambush setting unknown configuration feared open, familiar surroundings. 15 recognized "[e]ven outer constitutes security, surely annoying, frightening, perhaps humiliating experience." 1881-1882. intrusion, harm. Nor do suggest, does, de minimis disregarded. quite sure, arresting take ensure after, making, outweigh procedures entail. 16 agree below, required.1 hold This cases, think one.2 emphasize aimed circumstances, nevertheless found.3 IV 17 Affirmance 685 (1969), weapon. full-blown 754, 763, 2035, 2040, considered To reach our conclusion today, therefore, disagree Court's statement Chimel, 766-767, n. 12, 2041-2042, "the results man's [cannot characterized] 'minor,' "simply some interference freedom movement place, intrusions automatically allowed otherwise require," type authorize today far removed "top-to-bottom" involved Chimel; moreover, decidedly "automati[c]," V existed, proceedings inconsistent opinion. 19 ordered. concurring. 21 Today holds rather progress. I important applies sweeps. Officers conducting basis will reduce harm mission; short, protective. Officer State's burden demonstrate them try interfere arrest, safer stairs instead simply guarding above offered resistance somewhat hypothesis confederate persisted after testified worried about possible 9.1 Frolich, search, supplied explanation why thought another said "had idea lived there." 15. admission made telling 3-day prearrest surveillance 4. impression took "Buie safely outside unarmed." All suggests Indeed, safety, expect arrest: guard door prevent attacks. indicates, might, time "look[ed] in" already door, ante, 334, followed stairwell. merely "look basement; it.2 strategy sensible wishes surprising choice all. 24 thus face formidable task remand. However, courts better equipped review record. See, e.g., 155, 2, 81, (discussing state-law rules restricting record appeal decisions); cf. Hasting, 461 499, 516-518, 1974, 1984-1985, 76 96 (STEVENS, dissenting) (This avoid undertaking functions can "better performed judges"). survive "reasonable suspicion" 576, (1987), reviewed conclusion. appropriate. 25 26 adopts course explaining rule permitting state instance. concurrence Stevens, makes gratuitous observation My contrary. Based my understanding record, officers' accord procedure, remiss these precautions. comment necessary, lest acquiescence left Stevens' views interpreted authoritative guidance 27 MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 28 extends dispensing requirements carving exception private dwellings. briefly detain criminal activity concealed order herself deemed "reasonable" light violence" investigative detentions, 1881, "brief, inconsiderable, person." 26, 1882. 29 early progeny "permit[ted] stops extremely suspicion." Place, 696, 714, 2637, 2648, (BRENNAN, result). recently rationale underlying wide variety intrusive seizures,1 prompting continued criticism 'emerging tendency convert decision' narrow 'swallow[s] [searches] cause.' 719, 2651 result) (citations 30 Terry's "strikes between citizen privacy" Ante, 335, 2. majority executing dwelling potential parties, 333, offers assumption planned arrests approaches unavoidable "on-the-beat" confrontations myriad daily policemen citizens confront each street." 1875.2 event, implicit "minimally intrusive" akin markedly undervalues nature scope involved. 31 While protects settings, "physical chief evil wording directed." District Eastern Michigan, 407 297, 313, 92 2125, 2134, 32 752 (1972).3 discounts believes limited. explains sweep's "narrowly hiding," 327, duration period "no premises." 335-336.4 spatial temporal restrictions particularly limiting. bring purview virtually possessions small enclosed space. Police ambushers every room basements attics; closets, lockers, chests, wardrobes, cars; peer beds behind furniture. letters, documents, effects tables desks visible inside drawers; books, records, tapes, pictures shelves; clothing, medicines, toiletries paraphernalia carefully stored dresser drawers bathroom cupboards. "full-blown" 336, much closer "limited weapons" 'frisk' automobile." 332.5 Because sanctioned upheld "[t]he case," ibid., unwarranted. "ingredient" minimally absent, unpalatably deviates progeny.6 residence highly firmly fear threatened Given state-court determination lacked perceive affirm decision incriminating evidence. respectfully dissent. sought so. gave right argument objective inheres crime," Brief Petitioner 23, rebutted itself. "[o]fficers facing life threatening forced pause ponder legal subtleties associated quantum proof analysis," 23. encounters act quickly own adopt authorizing frisks confrontational encounters. Even high areas, given significant, conducted. approach reject attempts analogize Pennsylvania Mimms, 434 106, 98 330, 54 331 (1977) (per curiam ), Summers, 452 692, 101 2587, 69 340 (1981). Mimms driver stopped vehicle exit car "de minimis, 111, 333. Summers carries occupants completed. "mirror image" carried implied committing existence implies nothing whether found severe susceptible exploitation Ybarra Illinois, 444 85, 338, 62 238 (1979), bar bartender, bar's patrons absent individualized, frisked presently dangerous. too, standard—"one relatively simple concepts embodied Amendment," Sokolow, 1581, (1989)—strikes privacy. reliance "[a] search," refusal Hicks sanction ground stereo "cursory inspection," "full-blown 328, 1154. moved turntable serial number, simple. exigency work search. question "search," 16, 1877; attorney asked, 'You weren't anything like that?' answered, 'No.' 9. What done threats obviously presented answer. peculiarity appears concentrated least likely departing vulnerable relied relax both places, York Class, 475 106 960, 81 (1986) (search interior); (same); seizures effects, (1985) student's purse); (seizure luggage). Individual necessarily initiate advance planning "for purposes." 13, 1875. choosing execute suspect's minimize by, example, force; six secured And, course, select venue making Here initial But, concedes, "[o]nce over," house." exposed diminish rooms. 767, 2042 (1969) ("[W]e why, require"). exceeded defined noted "at remand, determine "complete 336. sufficiently broad today's encourage suspects' homes advantage opportunity peruse "plain view." incentive runs directly counter central tenet [no setting] zone clearly bounded unambiguous physical dimensions home—a finds roots clear terms." 589, 1381, expand "search arrest" previously allowing requisite "closets launched," equally disquieting. established presume law, factual arrestees destroy "within [their] control"; per se 2040. plausible sprinkle allies throughout arrested. Hence comparable "immediately adjoining" spaces.

Category: 0