United States v. Edwards

Supreme Court of United States
415 U.S. 800 (1974)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A warrantless search and seizure of an arrestee's clothing, conducted a reasonable time after a lawful custodial arrest while the arrestee remains in custody, is a permissible search incident to arrest and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Facts:

Shortly after 11 p.m. on May 31, 1970, Eugene Edwards was lawfully arrested for attempting to break into a Post Office.
An investigation at the crime scene revealed that a wooden window had been pried open, leaving paint chips on the window sill.
Edwards was taken to the local jail and placed in a cell, wearing the same clothes he had on at the time of his arrest.
The next morning, approximately 10 hours after the arrest, police purchased substitute clothing for Edwards.
Police then took the clothing Edwards had been wearing and held it as evidence.
A subsequent examination of Edwards' original clothing revealed paint chips that matched samples taken from the post office window.

Procedural Posture:

At trial in the U.S. District Court, Edwards' clothing and the results of its examination were admitted into evidence over his Fourth Amendment objection.
Edwards was convicted by the trial court.
Edwards appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed the conviction, holding that the warrantless seizure of the clothing was unconstitutional.
The United States (petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.

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 seizure of an arrestee's clothing, conducted approximately 10 hours after a lawful custodial arrest while the arrestee is incarcerated, violate the Fourth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice White

No. A warrantless seizure of an arrestee's clothing conducted a reasonable time after a lawful arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that searches and seizures that could be made at the time of arrest may also be conducted later when the accused arrives at the place of detention. The delay in seizing Edwards' clothing was reasonable because substitute clothing was not available late at night, and it would have been unreasonable to leave him naked in his cell. Because Edwards and his clothing were in continuous lawful custody, and because police had probable cause to believe the clothing contained evidence, the seizure was a normal incident of a custodial arrest. The test is not whether it was reasonable to procure a warrant, but whether the search itself was reasonable under the circumstances.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart

Yes. A warrantless seizure conducted 10 hours after an arrest violates the Fourth Amendment because it is not substantially contemporaneous with the arrest. The justifications for a warrantless search incident to arrest—the need to seize weapons, prevent escape, or prevent the destruction of evidence—were entirely absent once Edwards was securely incarcerated. The administrative mechanics of the arrest had long since ended, and there were no exigent circumstances to excuse the police's failure to obtain a warrant from a magistrate. The dissent argues that the majority's focus on the reasonableness of the search itself, rather than the reasonableness of forgoing a warrant, disregards established Fourth Amendment principles that require a warrant unless a situation falls within a 'jealously and carefully drawn' exception.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the temporal scope of the 'search incident to arrest' exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. It establishes that the search does not need to be strictly contemporaneous with the arrest, but can be delayed for a reasonable period while the suspect remains in custody. This gives law enforcement more flexibility to conduct searches of an arrestee's personal effects at the station house, shifting the legal focus from the timing of the search to the continuity of lawful custody and the overall reasonableness of the police conduct.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Edwards (1974)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature