Illinois v. McArthur
531 U.S. 326 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, it is a reasonable seizure for police officers to temporarily prevent a resident from entering their home unaccompanied while the officers diligently obtain a search warrant, provided they have probable cause to believe the home contains evidence of a crime and a reasonable belief that the resident would otherwise destroy it.
Facts:
- Tera McArthur asked two police officers to accompany her to the trailer she shared with her husband, Charles McArthur, to keep the peace while she removed her belongings.
- After collecting her possessions, Tera informed Assistant Chief John Love that Charles had marijuana in the trailer and had hidden it under the couch.
- Chief Love requested permission from Charles to search the trailer, but Charles denied consent.
- Chief Love then sent the other officer, Richard Skidis, to obtain a search warrant.
- While waiting for the warrant, Chief Love informed Charles that he could not re-enter the trailer unless a police officer accompanied him.
- Charles re-entered the trailer two or three times to get cigarettes and make phone calls, and on each occasion, Chief Love stood just inside the door to observe him.
- Approximately two hours later, Officer Skidis returned with a search warrant.
- A search of the trailer revealed marijuana and related paraphernalia under the sofa, and Charles was arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Illinois charged Charles McArthur in state trial court with misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia and marijuana.
- McArthur filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing it was the fruit of an unlawful seizure.
- The trial court granted McArthur's suppression motion.
- The State of Illinois, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Appellate Court of Illinois.
- The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the trial court's order to suppress the evidence.
- The State of Illinois's petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court was denied.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Illinois Appellate Court.
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 the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures prevent police officers, who have probable cause to believe a home contains contraband, from temporarily restricting a resident from entering that home unaccompanied while they diligently obtain a search warrant?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No, the Fourth Amendment does not prevent police from temporarily restricting a resident's entry in such a manner. The Court found the seizure reasonable by balancing the privacy-related and law enforcement-related concerns. The reasonableness of the restraint was supported by four key circumstances: 1) the police had probable cause to believe the trailer contained contraband based on Tera McArthur's firsthand account; 2) they had good reason to fear that Charles, knowing his wife had spoken with police, would destroy the evidence if left unrestrained; 3) the police imposed a less intrusive restraint by securing the premises from the outside rather than entering, searching, or arresting before obtaining a warrant; and 4) the restraint was for a limited and reasonable duration of two hours, which was the time necessary to diligently obtain the warrant. The Court distinguished this case from Welsh v. Wisconsin, noting the offenses here were jailable and the intrusion was less severe than a warrantless entry into the home.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, the Fourth Amendment does prevent this type of seizure under these circumstances. The dissent argued that the majority's balancing of interests was incorrect. The governmental interest in prosecuting the possession of a small, misdemeanor amount of marijuana is exceptionally slight. This minor law enforcement interest does not outweigh the profound constitutional protection afforded to the sanctity of an individual's home. Following the reasoning of Welsh v. Wisconsin, the dissent contended that some offenses are so minor that they render police actions that would otherwise be permissible, such as this seizure, unreasonable. The dissent concluded that the Illinois courts correctly valued the privacy of the home over the prosecution of this petty offense.
Concurring - Justice Souter
No, the restriction was permissible. The concurring opinion joined the majority but clarified that the exigency justifying police action—the risk of evidence destruction—abated once McArthur was outside the trailer. The reasonableness of preventing his re-entry stemmed from the renewed risk of destruction if he went back inside. The police chose the more constitutionally sound option by impounding the dwelling from the outside to secure a warrant, which the law strongly prefers, rather than following him inside to conduct a warrantless search. This approach gives police a fair chance to obtain a warrant while preventing the destruction of evidence.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant clarification of the 'exigent circumstances' doctrine, authorizing police to secure a residence from the outside while awaiting a search warrant. It provides a clear framework for law enforcement to prevent the destruction of evidence without making a warrantless entry, which is presumptively unreasonable under Payton v. New York. The decision creates a balancing test that weighs the gravity of the offense, the intrusiveness of the seizure, and the diligence of the officers. This precedent gives police a crucial, intermediate tool that is more intrusive than a mere stakeout but less so than a full warrantless entry, impacting how officers handle situations where probable cause exists but a warrant has not yet been issued.
Unlock the full brief for Illinois v. McArthur