TITLE

FOURTH AMENDMENT--DETENTION OF OCCUPANTS DURING A PREMISES SEARCH: THE WINTER OF DISCONTENT FOR PROBABLE CAUSE

AUTHOR(S)
Vawrinek, Jeffrey J.
PUB. DATE
December 1981
SOURCE
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology;Winter1981, Vol. 72 Issue 4, p1246
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article examines the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Summers in which it undertook a major dismantling of the probable cause requirement of the fourth amendment. In Summers, the Court widened the gap between the once equivalent fourth amendment terms of reasonableness and probable cause. Previously, subject to two limited exceptions, a valid, hence, reasonable seizure could occur only when the officer had probable cause to believe that a felony had been committed by the person to be arrested. With Summers, the Court has shifted its reasonableness focus from the existence of probable cause to the intrusiveness of the detention. The U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice Stevens, reversed the Michigan Supreme Court in a six to three decision. It held that a valid search warrant implicitly authorized the detention of the occupants of the premises, without probable cause, while the search is conducted. Justice Stewart, joined in dissent by Justices Brennan and Marshall, disagreed, arguing that such detention is not reasonable for fourth amendment purposes. In Michigan v. Summers the Supreme Court has gone well beyond the spirit of the limited exceptions to the probable cause requirement. The Summers decision places the focus on the intrusiveness of the seizure, rather than the existence of probable cause.
ACCESSION #
17521794

 

Related Articles

  • Supreme Court Changes Vehicle Search Rules. Hodsdon, Richard // Sheriff;Sep/Oct2009, Vol. 61 Issue 5/6, p68 

    The article discusses a court case where a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to change the operation of law enforcement during search incidents in the arrest of persons in motor vehicles in the U.S. It notes that the policies, procedures, and practices of law enforcement must change. It...

  • Smartphone Searches Incident to Arrest. Swingle, H. Morley // Journal of the Missouri Bar;Jan/Feb2012, Vol. 68 Issue 1, p36 

    The article discusses the Fourth Amendment standards of the U.S. according to which arresting officer can check the contents of a cell phones in case of an arrest. It discusses the violation of civil rights and the role of court's decisions in this issue. It further states that once the phone is...

  • FOURTH AMENDMENT--BALANCING THE INTERESTS IN THIRD PARTY HOME ARRESTS. Watson, G. Andrew // Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology;Winter1981, Vol. 72 Issue 4, p1263 

    The article examines the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Steagald v. United States in which the Court protected the privacy interests of individuals whose homes police seek to search when pursuing the subject of an arrest warrant. In mid-January 1978, the Federal Drug Enforcement...

  • FOURTH AMENDMENT--SEARCH OF AN INDIVIDUAL PURSUANT TO A WARRANT TO SEARCH THE PREMISES. Wall, Sandra J. // Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology;Winter1980, Vol. 71 Issue 4, p558 

    This article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case Ybarra versus Illinois which clarified the standard for law enforcement officers in searching persons found upon premises described in a warrant which does not name them. In the case of Ventura Ybarra, the Supreme Court...

  • SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT. Pinnola, Christina // Touro Law Review;Mar2011, Vol. 26 Issue 3, p851 

    The article discusses court cases wherein the Supreme Court addresses issues on the surveillance of defendants, and whether the surveillance had violated their rights under the U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court had addressed on whether the use of global positioning system...

  • DINING IN GOOD FAITH ON POISONOUS FRUIT? Hochberg, Janine L. // Widener Law Review;2009, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p301 

    The article discusses several court cases related to violations of police officers of the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. in which the Supreme Court interpreted as unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has formulated limits to the exclusionary rule to address situations in...

  • Being Smart With Your Smartphone, Police Search Edition. Doherty, Brian // Hit & Run;1/16/2011, p2 

    The article offers insights for U.S. citizens on responding to police searching for their mobile telephones upon arrest. The ruling of the Supreme Court of California in the case People v. Diaz holding that police officers are authorized to search mobile telephones found on arrested individuals'...

  • Warrant Needed for Search of Murder Scene. Young, Rowland L. // American Bar Association Journal;Sep78, Vol. 64 Issue 9, p1421 

    Shares the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case Mincey v. Arizona in which it held that a four-day police search of an apartment in which a detective had been killed violated the Fourth Amendment because no warrant had been issued. Background details of the case; Court rejection of the...

  • UNITED STATES v. KNIGHTS: certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit.  // Supreme Court Cases: The Twenty-first Century (2000 - Present);2009, p1 

    The article presents information on U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Knights, case number 00-1260, argued on November 6, 2001 and decided on December 10, 2001. The respondent was sentenced to probation for a drug offense. Included in the California court sentence was the condition that...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics