Michigan v. Summers
452 U.S. 692 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrant to search a premises for contraband, founded on probable cause, implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while the search is conducted.
Facts:
- Detroit police officers obtained a warrant to search a house belonging to respondent Summers for narcotics.
- As officers arrived to execute the warrant, they encountered Summers descending the front steps of the house.
- The officers stopped Summers on the porch and required him to re-enter and remain in the house while they conducted the search.
- During the search, officers discovered narcotics in the basement of the house.
- After finding the narcotics, police determined Summers was the owner of the house and formally arrested him.
- A subsequent search of Summers' person incident to his arrest revealed an envelope containing heroin in his coat pocket.
Procedural Posture:
- Summers was charged with possession of heroin in a Michigan state trial court.
- Summers moved to suppress the heroin, arguing it was the product of an illegal detention.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress and dismissed the charge.
- The State of Michigan appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, where a divided panel affirmed the trial court's ruling.
- The State then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which also affirmed the lower court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the State of Michigan's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 prohibit police officers from detaining an occupant of a premises without probable cause for arrest while they execute a valid warrant to search that premises for contraband?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit such detention. A warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted. The Court reasoned that such a detention is a substantially less intrusive seizure than a formal arrest and is justified by several significant law enforcement interests. First, a valid warrant, issued by a neutral magistrate, provides an objective justification for the seizure. Second, the intrusion on the occupant's liberty is minimal compared to the significant intrusion of the search itself, which has already been authorized. Third, the detention serves legitimate government interests, including preventing the occupant's flight if incriminating evidence is found, minimizing the risk of harm to officers, and facilitating the orderly completion of the search. Because the initial detention of Summers was lawful, his subsequent arrest based on the discovery of narcotics and the search incident to that arrest were constitutionally permissible.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
Yes, the Fourth Amendment prohibits detention of an occupant during a search without probable cause for arrest. The dissent argued that the Court created a broad new exception to the probable cause requirement that is not supported by precedent. The only established exceptions for seizures on less than probable cause are brief investigatory stops under Terry v. Ohio, justified by officer safety, and border patrol stops, justified by the unique interests in controlling immigration. The interests cited by the majority—preventing flight and facilitating a search—are merely ordinary law enforcement goals that do not outweigh the fundamental Fourth Amendment protection against seizure without probable cause. This holding allows police to make a person a prisoner in their own home for a potentially lengthy period, turning the probable cause requirement upside down by permitting seizure in case probable cause is later developed.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant, categorical rule that grants police clear authority to secure a premises by detaining occupants during the execution of a search warrant for contraband. It expands the scope of permissible seizures without probable cause beyond the narrow confines of Terry stops. The ruling prioritizes law enforcement interests like officer safety and prevention of evidence destruction over an individual's liberty interest in being free from detention. This bright-line rule simplifies the on-the-scene calculus for police officers, who no longer need to articulate an individualized suspicion to justify detaining residents while they search a home, and has become a standard procedure in warrant executions.
Unlock the full brief for Michigan v. Summers