No. The court said an arrest warrant is for a person, and a search warrant is for a place. The warrant to arrest Lyons gave police the power to grab Lyons, but it did not give them permission to invade the privacy of Steagald's home. Before police can search your house, they must convince a judge there's a good reason to believe the person they are looking for is actually inside. Without this rule, police could use an arrest warrant for one person as an excuse to search the homes of all their friends and family, which is a violation of privacy.

Yes. The dissenting judges argued that catching fugitives is extremely important, and fugitives are always on the move. Making police stop and get a second warrant gives the bad guy a chance to escape. The arrest warrant is enough because it proves the police are on official business and it limits their search to places where a person could be hiding. They can't just start rummaging through your drawers. The judges believed this approach was a better balance between catching criminals and respecting privacy.

The Supreme Court said that the Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches of their homes, even when the police are looking for someone else they want to arrest. The Court said that unless it's an emergency or the homeowner gives permission, the police need to get a special permission slip from a judge before searching someone's house for a person. The Court said that just having an arrest warrant for a person doesn't automatically give the police the right to search other people's homes for that person. The Court said the search of Steagald's home was against the rules because the police didn't have a search warrant and there was no emergency or permission.

Some judges disagreed and said the majority ignored the fact that the police had an arrest warrant and good reason to think the person they wanted was in the house. They argued that the government's need to catch people on the run is more important than the small invasion of privacy when police enter someone else's home with an arrest warrant. They believed that the law back when the Constitution was written allowed this kind of entry to arrest people. They warned that the Court's ruling will make things confusing for police who now have to consider many factors before going into homes to make arrests.

Yes. We say that the Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches of their homes, even when the police are looking for someone else they want to arrest. Unless it's an emergency or the homeowner gives permission, the police need to get a special permission slip from a judge before searching someone's house for a person. Just having an arrest warrant for a person doesn't automatically give the police the right to search other people's homes for that person. The search of Steagald's home was against the rules because the police didn't have a search warrant and there was no emergency or permission.

I agree with the decision that the police should not enter someone else’s home without a proper search warrant because the paper they had was only meant to catch one suspect and does not give them permission to search any house. I write this way to point out that even though the result is right, it’s very important to have a judge check and approve a search to keep everyone’s home privacy safe.

No. I disagree because the majority ignores the fact that the police had an arrest warrant and a good reason to think the person they wanted was in the house. The government's need to catch people on the run is more important than the small invasion of privacy when police enter someone else's home with an arrest warrant. The law back when the Constitution was written allowed this kind of entry to arrest people. This ruling will make things confusing for police who now have to consider many factors before going into homes to make arrests.

In Steagald, the Supreme Court held that, absent consent or exigent circumstances, the police may not enter a third party's home to search for the subject of an arrest warrant.

But before entering a third party's home to search for the subject of an arrest warrant, police must obtain a search warrant, absent exigent circumstances or the third party's consent.

"Absent consent or exigent circumstances, a private home may not be entered to conduct a search or effect an arrest without a warrant.

—the Court held that a search warrant is required when officers seek to enter the home of a third party to arrest someone else pursuant to a warrant.

A search warrant... is issued upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the legitimate object of a search is located in a particular place

—that a search warrant was not constitutionally required, the Government was initially entitled to defend against petitioner's charge of an unlawful search by asserting that petitioner lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched home.... The Government, however, may lose its right to raise factual issues of this sort before this Court when it has made contrary …

Second, "in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances...[the Court has] consistently held that the entry into a home to conduct a search or make an arrest is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless done pursuant to a warrant."

In Steagald, police entered the home of Steagald searching for Ricky Lyons, for whom they had an arrest warrant.

In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house

Yes, the Fourth Amendment prohibits such a search. An arrest warrant and a search warrant protect different constitutional interests. An arrest warrant protects an individual from unreasonable seizure by authorizing police to deprive that person of liberty, based on a judicial finding of probable cause that they committed a crime. A search warrant protects an individual's privacy interest in their home and possessions from unjustified police intrusion, based on a judicial finding of probable cause that a legitimate object of a search is located in a particular place. Using an arrest warrant for one person (Lyons) to enter the home of another person (Steagald) does nothing to protect the homeowner's privacy interest, as a neutral magistrate has not determined that there is probable cause to believe the suspect is located there. To allow such a practice would give police unfettered discretion to search the homes of a suspect's friends and acquaintances, creating a potential for abuse akin to the general warrants the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.

No, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit such a search. The majority's reasoning ignores the critical fact of a valid arrest warrant and oversimplifies the Fourth Amendment analysis, which requires balancing government interests against the privacy invasion. The government has a compelling interest in apprehending mobile fugitives, and requiring a separate search warrant would frustrate this interest by giving suspects time to flee. The intrusion on the third party's privacy is limited, as the arrest warrant provides official authority and confines the search to areas where a person could hide. The common law at the time of the Fourth Amendment's framing supported the authority of officers to enter a third party's dwelling to execute an arrest warrant.

The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures in their homes, and this protection extends to situations where law enforcement officers enter a third party's home to search for the subject of an arrest warrant. The Court emphasized that a search warrant, based on probable cause that the subject is located within the home, is required unless there is consent from the occupant or exigent circumstances. The Court reasoned that while an arrest warrant protects an individual from an unreasonable seizure, it does nothing to protect a third party's privacy interest in being free from an unreasonable search of their home. The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, finding the search of Steagald's home to be unconstitutional because the agents did not obtain a search warrant and there was no consent or exigent circumstances.

The dissent argued that the majority's decision ignores the critical fact that the agents had an arrest warrant and probable cause to believe the subject of the warrant was in the home. The dissent contended that the government's compelling interest in apprehending fugitives outweighs the minimal intrusion on fourth amendment interests when officers enter a third-party dwelling with an arrest warrant. The dissent believed that the common law at the time of the Fourth Amendment's framing allowed such entries to execute arrest warrants. The dissent warned that the majority's ruling will create uncertainty for police and magistrates who must now consider various factors like how long the suspect has been in the building before acting.

Yes. We hold that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures in their homes, and this protection extends to situations where law enforcement officers enter a third party's home to search for the subject of an arrest warrant. We emphasize that a search warrant, based on probable cause that the subject is located within the home, is required unless there is consent from the occupant or exigent circumstances. We reason that while an arrest warrant protects an individual from an unreasonable seizure, it does nothing to protect a third party's privacy interest in being free from an unreasonable search of that home. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, finding the search of Steagald's home to be unconstitutional because the agents did not obtain a search warrant and there was no consent or exigent circumstances.

I concur with the Court’s judgment that the warrantless entry into a third party’s home to execute an arrest warrant violates the Fourth Amendment because the arrest warrant is designed solely to authorize the seizure of the individual named and does not extend a protective shield to the privacy rights of others. I agree with the majority that a search warrant is required when the intrusion affects a person who has not been specified in the warrant; however, I write separately because I believe the opinion should more emphatically acknowledge the heightened risk of abuse when police rely exclusively on an arrest warrant. My concurrence differs from the majority in that I stress the necessity of a judicial check—embodied in the search warrant—because it ensures that only justified intrusions occur and protects third parties’ fundamental right to privacy. In sum, while I join the judgment, I urge a more cautious and clearly delimited application of warrantless searches to prevent potential overreach.

No. We maintain that the majority's decision ignores the critical fact that the agents had an arrest warrant and probable cause to believe the subject of that warrant was in the home. We contend that the government's compelling interest in apprehending fugitives outweighs the minimal intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests when officers enter a third-party dwelling with an arrest warrant. We believe that the common law at the time of the Fourth Amendment's framing allowed such entries to execute arrest warrants. We warn that the majority's ruling will create uncertainty for police and magistrates who must now consider various factors such as how long the suspect has been in the building before acting.

Steagald v. United States

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