No. The police went too far. The special rule that lets police hold someone during a search only works if the person is right there. The reasons for the rule are to keep officers safe, make sure the search goes smoothly, and stop people from running away with evidence. Those reasons don't make sense when the person is already a mile down the road. Plus, being stopped by police, handcuffed, and driven back to your home in a squad car is a much bigger deal than just being asked to wait at your house during a search.

Yes. What the police did was perfectly reasonable. It can be dangerous to stop a person right on the front steps because it might warn people inside, who could then grab a weapon or destroy evidence. It's safer to follow them and stop them when it's practical. The court should have allowed what the police did here because it was a smart and safe way to handle the situation.

No. The rule for this is supposed to be simple and clear. It's a 'bright-line' rule, not a 'what seems reasonable' rule. The rule says police can hold people who are at the scene of the search. Bailey was a mile away, so he wasn't at the scene. Case closed. Courts shouldn't be weighing the pros and cons in every single case; they should just follow the clear rule.

Yes. Police can only hold people near the place they are searching. If they go too far away, like a mile, it's not allowed. The police were wrong to hold Bailey so far from the apartment.

No. The police did the right thing by holding Bailey as soon as they could after seeing him leave the apartment. It doesn't matter if it was a little far away. The reasons for letting police hold people still make sense.

I agree with the main decision. The rule is simple - police can only hold people near the place they are searching. The lower court was wrong to look at other factors. The only question is if Bailey was close to the apartment when police held him.

No. The rule from Michigan v. Summers, authorizing the detention of occupants incident to the execution of a search warrant, does not extend to individuals who have left the immediate vicinity of the premises. The justifications for the Summers rule—officer safety, facilitating the completion of the search, and preventing flight—do not apply with the same force once an occupant has departed the scene. An occupant who has left the premises poses little risk to the officers conducting the search, cannot obstruct the search or hide evidence, and the interest in preventing flight cannot be so boundless as to justify detaining someone miles away. Furthermore, a detention away from the home is a more severe intrusion on personal liberty, involving the public stigma of a stop and compelled transport, which is far greater than the 'incremental intrusion' of being detained in one's own home during an authorized search. Therefore, the authority to detain must be confined to the immediate vicinity of the search.

Yes. The detention was reasonable and should be permitted under Summers. The Court of Appeals' standard—allowing detention 'as soon as reasonably practicable'—is a better and more realistic approach. This standard properly accounts for the law enforcement interests of officer safety and preventing the destruction of evidence or flight. Forcing officers to confront a potentially armed suspect on the doorstep of a residence could alert other occupants, leading to violence or the destruction of evidence. The majority's 'immediate vicinity' test is vague and creates a dangerous dilemma for officers, whereas the dissent's proposed standard is grounded in the practical realities and dangers of executing search warrants.

No. The rule in Summers establishes a categorical, bright-line exception to the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement, not a flexible, interest-balancing test. The sole question is whether the seizure falls within the scope of that categorical rule. The rule applies only to seizures of 'occupants,' which means persons within 'the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched.' Since Bailey was seized a mile away, the Summers exception is inapplicable, and the inquiry ends there. The Court of Appeals erred by engaging in an open-ended balancing of interests, which is precisely what Summers sought to avoid by creating a clear, workable rule for officers.

Yes. The authority to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant must be limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched because the law enforcement interests justifying detention (officer safety, facilitating the search, preventing flight) are diminished and the intrusiveness of the detention is more severe the further away from the premises the occupant is detained. Here, Bailey was detained nearly a mile away, which was beyond any reasonable understanding of the immediate vicinity of the premises. The detention was therefore unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

No. The detention of Bailey was reasonable because it occurred as soon as reasonably practicable after he was seen leaving the premises subject to a valid search warrant. The law enforcement interests outlined in Summers (officer safety, facilitating the search, preventing flight) apply with similar force whether an occupant is detained in the immediate vicinity of the premises or as soon as practicable after leaving. The Court's rule limiting detentions to the immediate vicinity is not justified by the underlying rationale of Summers.

I join the Court's opinion but write separately to emphasize that the categorical rule announced in Summers depends on the occupant being within the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched. The Summers rule cannot depend on an interest-balancing test applied to each individual case. The Court of Appeals erred by engaging in such a balancing inquiry rather than simply asking whether Bailey was within the immediate vicinity when he was detained.

Bailey v. United States

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot