Document: 531 U.S. 326121 S.Ct. 946148 L.Ed.2d 838 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.ILLINOIS, PETITIONERv.CHARLES McARTHUR No. 99-1132. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued November 1, 2000 Decided February 20, 2001 Syllabus Police officers, with probable cause believe respondent McArthur had hidden marijuana his home, prevented him from entering home unaccompanied by an officer for about two hours while they obtained a search warrant. Once did so, officers found drug paraphernalia and marijuana, arrested McArthur. He was subsequently charged misdemeanor possession those items. moved suppress evidence on ground it "fruit" unlawful police seizure, namely, refusal let reenter unaccompanied. The Illinois trial court granted motion, State Appellate affirmed. Held: Given nature intrusion law enforcement interest at stake, brief seizure premises permissible under Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3-10. (a) Amendment's central requirement one reasonableness. Although, ordinary case, personal property seizures unreasonable unless accomplished pursuant warrant, v. Place, 462 696, 701, there exceptions this rule involving special needs, diminished expectations privacy, minimal intrusions, like, see, e.g., Pennsylvania Labron, 518 938, 940-941. circumstances here involve plausible claim specially pressing urgent need. Cf., supra, 701. Moreover, restraint issue tailored need, being limited time scope, cf. Terry Ohio, 392 29-30, avoiding significant into itself, Payton New York, 445 573, 585. Consequently, rather than employing per se unreasonableness, must balance privacy-related enforcement-related concerns determine if reasonable. Cf. Delaware Prouse, 440 648, 654. In light following circumstances, considered combination, concludes restriction reasonable, hence lawful. First, McArthur's contained crime drugs. Second, good reason fear that, restrained, he would destroy drugs could return Third, reasonable efforts reconcile their needs demands privacy warrantless entry arrest preventing only Fourth, imposed period, which no longer reasonably necessary them, acting diligence, obtain 3-6. (b) conclusion lawful finds support Court's case law. See, Segura 468 796; 706. And has held temporary supported designed prevent loss diligently warrant period. But Welsh Wisconsin, 466 740, 754. 6-7. (c) not persuaded countervailing considerations raised parties lower courts: proceeded without cause; because porch, stay outside amounted impermissible "constructive eviction"; officer, consent, stepped inside home's doorway observe when reentered three occasions; 742, 754, offers direct position. 7-10. 304 Ill. App. 3d 395, 713 N. E. 2d 93, reversed remanded. CERTIORARI TO APPELLATE ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT Breyer, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion. Stevens, dissenting Opinion Justice Breyer Court. 1 man We decide whether violated conclude acted reasonably. They violate requirements. we reverse court's holding contrary. 2 * A 3 On April 2, 1997, Tera asked accompany her trailer where she lived husband, Charles, so keep peace removed belongings. Assistant Chief John Love Officer Richard Skidis, arrived 3:15 p.m. went inside, Charles present. remained outside. 4 When emerged after collecting possessions, spoke Love, who then porch. She suggested check "Chuck dope there." 15. added (in Love's words) seen Chuck "slid[e] some underneath couch." Id., 19. 5 knocked door, told what said, permission trailer, denied. sent Skidis get 6 also accompanied him. times (to cigarettes make phone calls), each stood just door did. 7 returned and, along searched it. sofa pipe, box (called "one-hitter" box), small amount marijuana. Charles. B 8 unlawfully possessing (less 2.5 grams), both misdemeanors. See Comp. Stat., ch. 720, 550/4(a), 600/3.5(a) (1998). box, were unaccompanied, have permitted him, "have destroyed marijuana." 27. 9 suppression motion. affirmed, 93 (1999), denied State's petition leave appeal, 185 651, 720 1101 (1999). certiorari Amendment prohibits kind here. II 10 says "right people secure persons, houses, papers, effects, against searches seizures, shall violated." Const., Amdt. 4. Its "central requirement" Texas Brown, 460 730, 739 (1983). enforce requirement, interpreted as establishing rules presumptions control conduct significantly intrude upon interests. Sometimes require warrants. example, "the case," "unreasonable within meaning Amendment," more, "unless . judicial warrant," issued neutral magistrate finding cause. 701 11 nonetheless clear requirement. faced certain general, individual, render 940-941 (1996) (per curiam) (search automobile cause); Michigan Dept. Sitz, 496 444, 455 (1990) (suspicionless stops drunk driver checkpoint); 706 (temporary luggage based suspicion); Summers, 452 692, 702-705 (1981) detention suspect flight protect executing warrant); 27 (1968) stop weapons suspicion). 12 us, cannot say unreasonable. It involves i.e., "exigent circumstances." ("[T]he exigencies circumstances" permit Warden, Md. Penitentiary Hayden, 387 294, 298-299 (1967) (warrantless delay posed grave danger); Schmerber California, 384 757, 770-771 (1966) blood test alcohol led evidence). 585 (1980) (" '[T]he chief evil ... directed' " home) (quoting Dist. Eastern Mich., 407 297, 313 (1972)). 654 (1979) (determining lawfulness balancing interests); Brignoni-Ponce, 422 873, 878 (1975) (same). 13 lawful, consider combination. contraband, opportunity speak least very rough assessment reliability. knew firsthand husband's behavior, particular respect issue. thought, reason, report them reflected opportunity. Massachusetts Upton, 727, 732-734 (1984) (upholding similar circumstances). 14 might thought realized wife stash; observed angry frightened enough ask her; saw leaving spoken police; noticed walked off policeman trailer. concluded McArthur, consequently suspecting imminent search, would, given chance, rid fast. 15 privacy. neither nor obtaining Rather, less restrictive restraint, left belongings intact-until Magistrate, cause, 16 period time, hours. 28 (manner act "vital part inquiry"). As far record reveals, police, Compare 709-710 (holding 90-minute interference person's travels lack diligence police), Van Leeuwen, 397 249, 253 (1970) 29-hour mailed package unavoidable intrusion). permissible. 17 Our 796 (1984), admissibility warrant-based apartment, but apartment occupying 19 majority admissible because, lawfully throughout, discovered seized validly id., 799, 814-815 (citing Silverthorne Lumber Co. 251 385 (1920)). minority disagreed. However, describing alternative methods, assumed, argument's sake, armed reliable information drugs, sealed outside, restricting waiting U.S., 814 ("Had never entered instead conducted perimeter stakeout anyone destroying evidence, contraband been precisely here"), 824, n. (Stevens, dissenting) ("I assume impoundment even absent exigent occurs 'from outside'-when authorities merely seal pending issuance do enter"); see Mincey Arizona, 437 385, 394 (1978) (exigent justify guard evidence); Jeffers, 342 48, 52 (1951) 18 various upheld restraints needed preserve until (reasonable suspicion justifies further investigation); detaining mailing). Richards 520 395 (1997) (no need "knock announce" destroyed); Carroll 267 132, 153 (1925) constitutionally permissible). time. 754 despite possibility noncriminal offense lost obtained). C 20 Nor courts raised. argues waived argument. 3d, 397, 2d, 95 (stating does contest existence Brief Opposition (acknowledging cause). And, event, merit. 4-5. 21 home; "amounted constructive eviction" residence. 402, 98. held, however, person standing house "in 'public' place," permitting home. Santana, 427 38, 42 (1976). Regardless, difference points-porch versus, front walk-could reasonableness restraint; perspective, matters. 22 negatively fact trailer's occasions. 402-403, simply own convenience, calls cigarettes. Under these greater (preventing reentry) implies lesser (permitting reentry conditioned observation). 23 Finally, points (and case) believes support, supra. Welsh, enter (namely, defendant's level) "nonjailable traffic offense" driving intoxicated. notes convictions misdemeanors, which, says, minor, adds keeping out nearly serious. 24 find distinctions. crimes "jailable," "nonjailable." 550/4(a) (1998); 5/5-8-3(3) (possession grams punishable up 30 days jail); 600/3.5; 5/5-8-3(1) year jail). noted "[g]iven classification state differs widely among penalty attach seems provide clearest most consistent indication arresting individuals suspected committing offense." 14. same reasoning applies here, class misdemeanors include such diverse offenses drag racing, drinking railroad car platform, bribery candidate public office, assault. 65, 5/4-8-2 610, 90/1; 625, 5/11-504; 5/12-1. 25 Temporarily consequence whenever street, considerably intrusive itself search. (the concern home). 26 explained above why "jailable" sufficiently imposed. us justified type "nonjailable" III sum, crime. believed resident, free evidence. protecting our view, met demands. judgment reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent 29 ordered. concurring. 31 I join afterword points: constitutionality permissibility choosing over immediate Respondent location between exigency temporarily barring dwelling property. long illegal stashed reported sense flush down drain probability destruction anticipation exemplifies present risk undergirds accepted exception general (1966). That promptly 42-43 (1976); (1967). uninhabited, abated justification claimed action risk, limit response set scope risk. 25-26 (1968). 32 Since, wished go back in, perfectly well chose, enjoyed ensuing follow renewed danger destruction? answer officiously insists safeguarding suspect's preference respecting liberty dwelling. Instead, legitimacy decision impound follows law's strong warrants, underlies stronger later, review one. Ventresca, 380 102, 106 (1965); W. LaFave, Search Seizure 11.2(b), p. 38 (3d ed. 1996) ("[M]ost states utilized federal defendant burden proof; proof prosecution"). can hardly raise incentives giving fair chance take 33 dissenting. 34 General Assembly decided misdemeanor. classifying offense, legislature concerted policy amounts use constitute particularly concern. While true offense-like feeding livestock highway offering movie rent clearly displaying its rating1-may jail sentence days, detection prosecution possessors quantities substance means priority Illinois.2 35 Because governmental implicated criminal prohibition slight, poor vehicle probing boundaries government's power individual's possessory arrival (seven Justices decline address resolution). my preference, therefore, dismiss writ improvidently granted. 36 Compelled vote colleagues reach merits, affirm. explains, essential inquiry "privacy-related reasonable." Ante, specific facts gets wrong. Each jurists participated placed higher value sanctity citizen's petty offense. correctly viewed interest-whether humble cottage, secondhand stately mansion-as meriting serious constitutional protection.3 Following analysis 740 minor undertake graver suspected), NOTES: 605, 5/9-124.1 (1998) (making misdemeanor); 395/3-395/4 sell video display official rating motion picture copied). Other examples classified Class camping side highway, 5/9-124 (1998), interfering "lawful taking wild animals," 125/2 tattooing body years age, 5/12-10 many States. laws maximum 2.3 Illinois. e. g., Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. 11357(b) (West 1991) ($100 fine); Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-18-406(1) (1999) Minn. 152.027(4) (2000) ($200 fine education); Miss. 41-29-139(c)(2)(A) (Supp. 1999) ($100-$250 Neb. 28-416(13) (1995) M. 30-31-23(B) ($50-$100 Y. Penal Law 221.05 (McKinney 2000) Ore. 475.992(4)(f) 1998) fine). Principled animated jurisprudence. Wilson Layne, 526 U. S. 603, 610 ("The embodies centuries-old principle home"); 601 (emphasizing overriding embedded traditions since origins Republic"); 393 reflects view wrote Bill Rights totally sacrificed name simplicity law").

Category: 0