Johnson v. United States
333 U.S. 10, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. 436 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment requires that inferences of probable cause for a search of a private residence be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate, not the police; therefore, a warrantless search is unconstitutional unless justified by well-delineated exigent circumstances, and mere inconvenience to officers is not such a circumstance.
Facts:
- A confidential informant, who was a known narcotic user, told Seattle police officer Lieutenant Belland that unknown persons were smoking opium in the Europe Hotel.
- The informant returned to the hotel and reported back that he could smell burning opium in the hallway.
- Belland and four federal narcotic agents went to the hotel, where they all recognized a strong and distinctive odor of burning opium.
- The odor led the officers to Room 1, but they did not know who was occupying the room.
- The officers knocked, and after Belland identified himself, the defendant, Johnson, opened the door.
- Belland stated he wanted to talk to her, and she stepped back from the door, at which point the officers entered the room.
- Once inside, Belland told Johnson she was under arrest because they were going to search the room.
- The subsequent search uncovered opium and smoking apparatus that was still warm.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnson was prosecuted in the U.S. District Court (trial court) for violations of federal narcotic laws.
- Prior to trial, Johnson filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, which the District Court denied.
- Following a trial, Johnson was convicted on four counts.
- Johnson, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals, with the United States as appellee, affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
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 warrantless search of a private residence, based on an officer's detection of the smell of burning opium and conducted immediately after a warrantless arrest, violate the Fourth Amendment when there are no exigent circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes. A warrantless search of a private residence violates the Fourth Amendment absent exigent circumstances. The core protection of the Fourth Amendment is that inferences of probable cause must be drawn by a 'neutral and detached magistrate' rather than by an officer 'engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.' While the smell of opium may constitute probable cause sufficient for a magistrate to issue a warrant, it does not empower officers to conduct a search without one. To hold otherwise would 'reduce the Amendment to a nullity.' There were no exigent circumstances, such as a fleeing suspect or evidence in imminent danger of destruction, that would justify bypassing the warrant requirement. Furthermore, the search cannot be justified as incident to a lawful arrest, because the officers only established probable cause to arrest Johnson after they had illegally entered her room and found she was the sole occupant. An arrest cannot be justified by an illegal search, nor can a search be justified by an arrest that it facilitates.
Dissenting - Unspecified (The Chief Justice, Black, Reed, and Burton)
The case text notes the dissent of four justices but does not provide the reasoning for their opinion.
Analysis:
This decision powerfully reaffirms the sanctity of the home under the Fourth Amendment and solidifies the central role of the warrant requirement. It establishes the principle that a police officer's own determination of probable cause cannot substitute for the impartial judgment of a magistrate, even when the officer's belief is well-founded. The ruling clarifies that the 'exigent circumstances' exception is narrow and does not include the mere inconvenience of obtaining a warrant. By rejecting the government's circular logic that the search justified the arrest which in turn justified the search, the Court set a crucial precedent against using the fruits of an illegal search to validate the police action that produced them.
Unlock the full brief for Johnson v. United States