Court Opinion

ID: 9427857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:22:06.518657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:10.061895
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
dissenting.
The Court today refers to both Payton and Riddick as involving “routine felony arrests.” I have no reason to dispute the- Court’s characterization of these arrests, but cannot refrain from commenting on the social implications of the result reached by the Court. Payton was arrested for the murder of the manager of a gas station; Riddick was arrested for two armed robberies. If these are indeed “routine felony arrests,” which culminated in convictions after' trial upheld by the state courts on appeal, surely something is amiss in the process of the administration of criminal justice whereby these convictions are now set aside by this Court under the exclusionary rule which we have imposed upon the States under *621the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
I fully concur in and join the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice White. There is significant historical evidence that we have over the years misread the history of the Fourth Amendment in connection with searches, elevating the warrant requirement over the necessity for probable cause in a way which the Framers of that Amendment did not intend. See T. Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation 38-50 (1969). But one may accept all of that as stare decisis, and still feel deeply troubled by the transposition of these same errors into the area of actual arrests of felons within their houses with respect to whom there is probable cause to suspect guilt of the offense in question.