Marron v. United States
275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When making a lawful arrest for a crime being committed on a premises, officers may contemporaneously search the area within the arrestee's immediate control and seize items used to carry on the criminal enterprise, even if those items are not specified in the search warrant.
Facts:
- Petitioner Marrón was the lessee of the entire second floor of a commercial property at 1249 Polk Street in San Francisco.
- The premises were being operated as a speakeasy for the illegal retail and consumption of intoxicating liquors in violation of the National Prohibition Act.
- A prohibition agent obtained a search warrant authorizing a search of the premises for intoxicating liquors and articles for their manufacture.
- Prohibition agents entered the premises, finding it in operation with patrons being served, and encountered an individual named Birdsall who was in charge.
- The agents placed Birdsall under lawful arrest for maintaining a public nuisance in their presence.
- While searching a closet for liquor pursuant to the warrant, agents discovered a ledger containing inventories and financial records of the illegal business.
- The agents also found and seized utility bills addressed to Marrón for services furnished to the premises, which were located next to a cash register.
- The seized ledger and bills were not described in the search warrant.
Procedural Posture:
- Marrón and several others were indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act.
- Following a trial, Marrón was convicted.
- Marrón, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed his conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- Marrón was convicted again at his second trial in the district court.
- Marrón, as appellant, appealed a second time to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review of the Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.
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 permit the seizure of items not described in a search warrant when those items are discovered on the premises during a lawful arrest and are used in the commission of the crime for which the arrest was made?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Butler
Yes, the Fourth Amendment permits such a seizure. While the seizure of the ledger and bills was not authorized by the search warrant because they were not particularly described, it was justified as an incident to the lawful arrest of Birdsall. The officers had a right to contemporaneously search the premises under Birdsall's immediate control to find and seize things used to carry on the criminal enterprise. The court reasoned that the ledger and bills were part of the 'outfit or equipment' actually used to commit the offense of maintaining a nuisance, and because they were in Birdsall's immediate possession and control at the time of his arrest, their seizure was constitutional.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified the scope of the search incident to a lawful arrest doctrine. It established that the search is not limited to the arrestee's person but extends to the area within their immediate control. Furthermore, it broadened the category of seizable items beyond weapons or contraband to include 'instrumentalities of the crime,' such as business records, that are used to facilitate the criminal enterprise. This precedent expanded the authority of law enforcement to gather evidence during an arrest on a premises where a crime is actively being committed.
