The_RANDy_Corporation
03-10-2001, 02:05 PM
(Originally posted by Lawless)
Illinois v. McArthur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court recently determined a fourth amendment issue which was somewhat interesting. In Illinois v. McArthur, (No. 99-1132, 2-20-2001), the Court determined whether McArthur's fourth amendment rights were violated when police officers, with probable cause to believe that he had hidden marijuana in his home, prevented him from entering his home for about two hours while they obtained a search warrant.
McCarthur's wife had asked two police officers to accompany her to her trailer, where she and her husband lived, so that they could keep the peace while she removed her belongings. As she exited the trailer with her belongings, she told the officers that her husband had marijuana inside. The officers knocked on the trailer door. McCarthur answered. The officers told McCarthur what his wife had said and they asked for consent to search the trailer. McCarthur said no. McCarthur's wife left with one of the police officers to obtain a search warrant. The remaining officer told McCarthur, who by this time was standing on the front porch, that he could not re-enter his trailer unless an officer accompanied him. McCarthur re-entered the trailer a couple times (to obtain cigarettes and make a phone call) with permission of and under surveillance of the police officer. The other officer returned with a search warrant approximately two hours later. The officers searched the trailer and found a small amount of marijuana.
McCarthur moved successfully in the trial court to suppress the marijuana on the basis that his fourth amendment rights had been violated, because the police had prevented him from re-entering his home, thereby preventing him from destroying the marijuana. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's order and the Illinois Supreme Court denied the State's Petition for Leave to Appeal. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the temporary detention violated McCarthur's fourth amendment rights.
The United States Supreme Court held that the brief seizure of McCarthur (by refusing for two hours to allow him to enter his home unaccompanied) was reasonable and did not violate McCarthur's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In doing so, the Court reasoned that: the officers had probable cause to believe that McCarthur had marijuana (based on his wife's statements); they had reason to believe that McCarthur would destroy the marijuana if left unrestrained before they procured the warrant; and the restraint was for a limited time period (two hours). Furthermore, the Court resasoned that the police balanced McCarthur's right to privacy with their law enforcement duties, as they did not search the premises or arrest him until after the warrant was obtained and as the police allowed him to enter the trailer under the watchful eye of one of the officers.
The Court also rejected the Appellate Court of Illinois' conclusion that the police could not order McCarthur to stay outside his home because the front porch, where he stood, was part of his house and that such conduct amounted to a "constructive eviction" of McCarthur from his residence. In doing so, the United States Supreme Court relied on its prior precedent which stated that a person standing in the doorway of a house is in a "public place."
Thus, ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the officers had not acted unreasonably, and reversed the state appellate court's holding to the contrary.
Justice Stevens dissented stating that:
Each of the Illinois jurists who participated in the decision of this case placed a higher value on the sanctity of the ordinary citizen's home than on the prosecution of this petty offense. They correctly viewed that interest--whether the home be a humble cottage, a secondhand trailer, or a stately mansion--as meriting the most serious constitutional protection.
"Always do more than is required of you." George S. Patton, Jr.
The RANDy Corporation
Forum Host
posts: 426
(3/5/01 11:05:02 am)
Reply | Edit
Don't p*ss of your woman if you are carrying!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a civil lawyer (oxymoron?)but the other day the State and some mope were waiting out in the hallway for a supression hearing but I went long in closing argument so while they waited they cut a deal. After my jury went out they brought the mope in and sentenced him per the plea agreement to 3 years DOC, etc. The factual basis given was that the cops responded to a domestic and, on arrival saw the accused leaving the house carrying a bag with his female counterpart following closely behind and chewing him out. He was told to stop but proceeded to the next house and put down the bag and then came back to talk to the officer. Searching the bag they found 300 grams of pot and a scale.
The moral, don't get in a fight with your ho if you're carrying.
------------ Joshua 24:15
Venus3000
I should register!
(3/5/01 6:13:56 pm)
Reply *Sigh*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Justice Stevens, but, more so, I disagree with the majority of the SCOTUS. But then,I consider the cop's 'surveillance' of the suspect while he was grabbing his smokes a violation of the Fourth. Nothing alleged to exist inside that trailer warranted the cops sticking their nose in there or detaining him, especially considering the source of the 'hot tip'! LOL!
As an aside, under the circumstances, if I was the cop, I'd have considered the source of the information and given strong thought to the possibility that she made up the story just to get them (the cops) to screw with him for awhile, or to slow him down from following her, since the cops are mostly useless when you really need 'em.
Illinois v. McArthur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court recently determined a fourth amendment issue which was somewhat interesting. In Illinois v. McArthur, (No. 99-1132, 2-20-2001), the Court determined whether McArthur's fourth amendment rights were violated when police officers, with probable cause to believe that he had hidden marijuana in his home, prevented him from entering his home for about two hours while they obtained a search warrant.
McCarthur's wife had asked two police officers to accompany her to her trailer, where she and her husband lived, so that they could keep the peace while she removed her belongings. As she exited the trailer with her belongings, she told the officers that her husband had marijuana inside. The officers knocked on the trailer door. McCarthur answered. The officers told McCarthur what his wife had said and they asked for consent to search the trailer. McCarthur said no. McCarthur's wife left with one of the police officers to obtain a search warrant. The remaining officer told McCarthur, who by this time was standing on the front porch, that he could not re-enter his trailer unless an officer accompanied him. McCarthur re-entered the trailer a couple times (to obtain cigarettes and make a phone call) with permission of and under surveillance of the police officer. The other officer returned with a search warrant approximately two hours later. The officers searched the trailer and found a small amount of marijuana.
McCarthur moved successfully in the trial court to suppress the marijuana on the basis that his fourth amendment rights had been violated, because the police had prevented him from re-entering his home, thereby preventing him from destroying the marijuana. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's order and the Illinois Supreme Court denied the State's Petition for Leave to Appeal. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the temporary detention violated McCarthur's fourth amendment rights.
The United States Supreme Court held that the brief seizure of McCarthur (by refusing for two hours to allow him to enter his home unaccompanied) was reasonable and did not violate McCarthur's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In doing so, the Court reasoned that: the officers had probable cause to believe that McCarthur had marijuana (based on his wife's statements); they had reason to believe that McCarthur would destroy the marijuana if left unrestrained before they procured the warrant; and the restraint was for a limited time period (two hours). Furthermore, the Court resasoned that the police balanced McCarthur's right to privacy with their law enforcement duties, as they did not search the premises or arrest him until after the warrant was obtained and as the police allowed him to enter the trailer under the watchful eye of one of the officers.
The Court also rejected the Appellate Court of Illinois' conclusion that the police could not order McCarthur to stay outside his home because the front porch, where he stood, was part of his house and that such conduct amounted to a "constructive eviction" of McCarthur from his residence. In doing so, the United States Supreme Court relied on its prior precedent which stated that a person standing in the doorway of a house is in a "public place."
Thus, ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the officers had not acted unreasonably, and reversed the state appellate court's holding to the contrary.
Justice Stevens dissented stating that:
Each of the Illinois jurists who participated in the decision of this case placed a higher value on the sanctity of the ordinary citizen's home than on the prosecution of this petty offense. They correctly viewed that interest--whether the home be a humble cottage, a secondhand trailer, or a stately mansion--as meriting the most serious constitutional protection.
"Always do more than is required of you." George S. Patton, Jr.
The RANDy Corporation
Forum Host
posts: 426
(3/5/01 11:05:02 am)
Reply | Edit
Don't p*ss of your woman if you are carrying!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a civil lawyer (oxymoron?)but the other day the State and some mope were waiting out in the hallway for a supression hearing but I went long in closing argument so while they waited they cut a deal. After my jury went out they brought the mope in and sentenced him per the plea agreement to 3 years DOC, etc. The factual basis given was that the cops responded to a domestic and, on arrival saw the accused leaving the house carrying a bag with his female counterpart following closely behind and chewing him out. He was told to stop but proceeded to the next house and put down the bag and then came back to talk to the officer. Searching the bag they found 300 grams of pot and a scale.
The moral, don't get in a fight with your ho if you're carrying.
------------ Joshua 24:15
Venus3000
I should register!
(3/5/01 6:13:56 pm)
Reply *Sigh*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Justice Stevens, but, more so, I disagree with the majority of the SCOTUS. But then,I consider the cop's 'surveillance' of the suspect while he was grabbing his smokes a violation of the Fourth. Nothing alleged to exist inside that trailer warranted the cops sticking their nose in there or detaining him, especially considering the source of the 'hot tip'! LOL!
As an aside, under the circumstances, if I was the cop, I'd have considered the source of the information and given strong thought to the possibility that she made up the story just to get them (the cops) to screw with him for awhile, or to slow him down from following her, since the cops are mostly useless when you really need 'em.