Yes, they can. The Court decided that keeping police officers safe is important enough to allow a limited search with a lower standard of proof. A house can be a dangerous place for police during an arrest. As long as they have a 'reasonable suspicion' that someone else might be there to harm them, they can do a quick check of places where a person could hide. They can also always check the immediate area of the arrest, like a closet in the same room, without any suspicion at all.

No, they can't. A person's home is their most private space and should have the strongest legal protection. Allowing police to search any part of a house without 'probable cause' is a big deal and a major invasion of privacy. A 'quick check' can still let police see all your personal belongings. The court is making it too easy for police to search a home when they shouldn't.

Yes, but police need a real reason. I agree that police can do a safety check if they have a reasonable suspicion, but it has to be a genuine safety concern. In this case, I'm not sure the police had a good reason to go into the basement after Buie was already arrested and handcuffed. It seems like the danger was already over.

Yes, and the police did the right thing. I disagree with the other judge's doubts. Checking the basement was a smart and standard safety procedure. The police would have been careless if they hadn't made sure the scene was safe for everyone.

Yes, the Constitution allows police to do a quick, limited 'protective sweep' of a home during an arrest if they have specific reasons to think a dangerous person could be hiding. This balances officer safety with privacy. The sweep can only be a quick look in places a person could be, and only until the danger is gone or police leave after the arrest. Police can also quickly check right near the arrest spot without any suspicion.

I disagree. The court is letting police search homes too easily, without respecting privacy. A 'protective sweep' is way more invasive than a quick pat-down outside. Homes are special, so police should need probable cause of danger to look through the whole house.

I agree with the Court but want to be clear - police need reasons to think the sweep will make them safer, not just to look for evidence. The facts here make it seem hard for Maryland to prove the basement search was for safety on appeal.

Unlike Justice Stevens, I think the police acted properly here to protect themselves based on normal procedures. They had to take precautions. I'm just noting this so Justice Stevens' view isn't seen as the official guidance.

No. I disagree. The court is letting police search homes too easily, without respecting privacy. A 'protective sweep' is way more invasive than a quick pat-down outside. Homes are special, so police should need probable cause of danger to look through the whole house.

For a protective sweep to be valid, "there must be articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene

A "protective sweep" is a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others.

As an incident to arrest officers may, "as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched."

"A `protective sweep'is a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. It is narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding. "

"[A] protective sweep is not a full search of the premises, but may extend only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found. The sweep lasts no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and in any event no longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises."

Reasonableness is in turn measured by balancing the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests

A limited protective sweep is permitted when an officer has "reasonable belief" that a dangerous individual is in the area

—requiring "a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the house is harboring a person posing a danger to those on the arrest scene

It also stated that "unlike an encounter on the street or along a highway, an in-home arrest puts the officer at the disadvantage of being on his adversary's `turf.'An ambush in a confined setting of unknown configuration is more to be feared than it is in open, more familiar surroundings. "

Yes, the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless protective sweep based on reasonable suspicion. The Court held that the interest in officer safety during a potentially dangerous in-home arrest outweighs the individual's privacy interest in a limited, cursory search for dangerous persons. Extending the logic of Terry v. Ohio, the Court established a two-part standard: 1) officers may automatically, without suspicion, inspect spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be launched, and 2) a wider sweep requires 'articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger.' The sweep must be quick, cursory, and limited to places where a person could hide, and must end once the suspicion is dispelled or the arrest is complete.

No, a protective sweep of a home requires the higher standard of probable cause. The dissent argued that extending the Terry standard of reasonable suspicion into the home, which receives the highest Fourth Amendment protection, is a dangerous expansion that undervalues the sanctity of a private residence. A protective sweep is far more intrusive than a brief patdown on the street, as it allows police to view nearly all of a home's contents. The dissent contended that the majority's assumption about the dangers of planned home arrests is overstated and does not justify carving out another exception to the warrant and probable cause requirements.

Yes, but the standard must be strictly applied. The concurrence agreed with the reasonable suspicion standard but emphasized that the sweep must be genuinely protective, not a pretext to search. The state bears the burden of showing that officers had a specific, reasonable basis to believe a search would reduce danger. Justice Stevens expressed doubt that the facts of this particular case met the standard, questioning why the officer entered the basement after Buie had surrendered peacefully and was in custody, suggesting no reasonable suspicion of danger remained.

Yes, and the officers' actions were appropriate. This concurrence was written to counter Justice Stevens' skepticism, stating that the protective sweep was in full accord with standard police safety procedures. Justice Kennedy asserted that, based on the record, the officers would have been remiss had they not taken the precaution of sweeping the basement for other potential threats.

Yes, the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. This standard is consistent with the rationale of Terry v. Ohio and Michigan v. Long, balancing the need for officer safety against the intrusion on individual privacy. The protective sweep is limited to a cursory inspection of spaces where a person may be found and lasts no longer than necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger or until the officers leave the premises after the arrest. As an incident to the arrest, officers can also look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

I dissent because the majority extends Terry v. Ohio into the home without sufficient justification, undervaluing the privacy interests involved. A protective sweep is far more intrusive than a limited patdown for weapons or a frisk of an automobile, as it allows police to view virtually all personal possessions in the home. Given the special sanctity of the home and the highly intrusive nature of a protective sweep, I believe police must have probable cause to fear their safety is threatened by a hidden confederate before conducting a sweep of the entire home.

I agree with the Court's opinion but emphasize that the reasonable suspicion standard applies only to protective sweeps, not searches for evidence. The officers must have a reasonable basis for believing the sweep will reduce the danger of harm to themselves or interference with the arrest. The State faces a formidable task on remand to demonstrate this, as some facts suggest no reasonable suspicion of danger justified the basement entry.

Contrary to Justice Stevens' suggestion, I believe the officers' conduct here was likely in full accord with standard police safety procedure based on my present understanding of the record. The officers would have been remiss not to take these precautions. This comment is necessary to avoid leaving the impression that Justice Stevens' views are authoritative guidance for applying the Court's ruling to the facts.

Maryland v. Buie

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