Harris v. United States
331 U.S. 145 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A search incident to a lawful arrest may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the entire premises under his immediate and exclusive control. Law enforcement may lawfully seize contraband discovered during such a search, even if the contraband is unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made.
Facts:
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents obtained two valid warrants for the arrest of George Harris for mail fraud and transporting a forged check.
- The alleged crimes involved a scheme to cash a forged $25,000 check drawn on the Mudge Oil Company.
- Five FBI agents went to Harris's four-room apartment in Oklahoma City and lawfully arrested him in the living room.
- Following the arrest, the agents conducted a meticulous five-hour search of the entire apartment over Harris's protest.
- The stated purpose of the search was to find two stolen $10,000 canceled checks from the Mudge Oil Company and other instrumentalities of the forgery crime.
- During the search of a bedroom bureau drawer, an agent found a sealed envelope labeled "George Harris, personal papers."
- The agent tore open the envelope and discovered eight Notice of Classification cards and eleven Registration Certificates (draft cards), possession of which was a federal crime.
- The discovered draft cards were entirely unrelated to the mail fraud and forged check crimes for which Harris was arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- George Harris was charged in the United States District Court with violations of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 and the Criminal Code.
- Prior to trial, Harris filed a motion to suppress the evidence (draft cards), arguing it was obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure.
- The District Court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, Harris was convicted on sixteen counts.
- Harris, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding the search was a reasonable incident to a lawful arrest.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a thorough, five-hour search of a person's entire four-room apartment, conducted without a search warrant but as an incident to a lawful arrest made within the apartment, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Vinson
No. The search of Harris's entire apartment was a reasonable search incident to a lawful arrest and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. A search incident to arrest may extend beyond the person to the premises under the arrestee's immediate control. Here, Harris had exclusive control over the four-room apartment, and the instrumentalities of the crime (small canceled checks) could have been concealed in any room. The search's intensity was justified by the nature of the items sought. Furthermore, the seizure of the illegal draft cards was permissible because they were contraband and government property, the possession of which constituted a crime being committed in the presence of the officers. When officers stumble upon evidence of another crime during a lawful search, the Fourth Amendment does not require them to ignore it.
Dissenting - Justice Frankfurter
Yes. This decision permits rummaging throughout a house without a search warrant, posing a serious threat to the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The court's reasoning turns an arrest warrant into a general warrant, allowing police to search a home from 'garret to cellar' merely because an arrest occurred there. To find authority for ransacking a home from the authority to arrest a person is a novel and dangerous interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. The scope of a warrantless search should be strictly confined, not expanded to cover an entire dwelling, as this erodes the protections against police intrusion that are central to a free society.
Dissenting - Justice Murphy
Yes. The Court has resurrected and approved the use of the odious general warrant, which the Fourth Amendment was designed to outlaw. The search in this case was not a limited search for specific items but a general exploratory one, a 'ransacking search for anything that might turn up,' which has been repeatedly condemned by the Court. Authority to arrest does not confer authority to search an entire home. The discovery of the draft cards cannot retrospectively justify an illegal search; an unconstitutional search at its inception cannot be validated by what it uncovers. This decision effectively removes Fourth Amendment protections from anyone arrested in their home.
Dissenting - Justice Jackson
Yes. Once a search is allowed to extend beyond the person arrested and the objects in his immediate physical control, there is no practical limit short of searching the entire premises, which is what the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit without a specific warrant. The legality of a search must be judged by the conditions under which it starts, not by what it ultimately finds. The 'fair implication of the Constitution' is that no search of premises is reasonable unless a disinterested magistrate approves the cause, fixes its limits, and particularly defines its scope in a warrant. This decision leaves the scope of a search to the discretion and zeal of the arresting officer, circumventing the core protections of the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis:
Harris v. United States dramatically expanded the permissible scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest, allowing for a comprehensive search of an entire dwelling under the arrestee's control. This decision established a controversial precedent that seemed to blur the distinction between a limited, protective search and a general, exploratory one. The broad rule of Harris was later heavily criticized and ultimately overruled by Chimel v. California (1969), which narrowed the scope of a search incident to arrest to only the arrestee's person and the area 'within his immediate control' from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.
Unlock the full brief for Harris v. United States