United States v. Santana

Supreme Court of United States
427 U.S. 38 (1976)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A suspect may not defeat a lawful warrantless arrest that is set in motion in a public place by the expedient of retreating into a private place. For Fourth Amendment purposes, a person standing in the open doorway of their home is in a 'public place' where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Facts:

Undercover officer Michael Gilletti arranged to buy heroin from Patricia McCafferty.
McCafferty told Gilletti they would get the drugs from 'Mom Santana’s' residence and directed him there.
McCafferty took marked money from Gilletti, went into the house of Dominga Santana, and returned shortly after with envelopes of heroin.
After Gilletti arrested McCafferty, she told him, 'Mom has the money.'
Police officers returned to Santana's residence and saw her standing directly in the open doorway holding a brown paper bag.
When the officers identified themselves and approached, Santana retreated into the vestibule of her house.
The officers followed her inside and apprehended her in the vestibule.
During the arrest, heroin fell from Santana's bag, and the marked money was found in her pockets.

Procedural Posture:

The United States government indicted Santana and Alejandro in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for possession of heroin with intent to distribute.
Santana and Alejandro moved to suppress the evidence (heroin and money) found during their arrest.
The District Court, a trial court, granted the motion to suppress, ruling that the police needed a warrant and that the entry was not justified by 'hot pursuit.'
The government, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the District Court's suppression order without issuing an opinion.
The United States, as the petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

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 suspect's retreat from the open doorway of their home into the vestibule thwart a lawful warrantless arrest set in motion in that public space, thereby making the police's subsequent warrantless entry a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist

No, a suspect's retreat into a private residence cannot thwart an otherwise proper arrest initiated in a public place. Santana was in a 'public' place when she stood in her doorway, as she was knowingly exposed to public view and had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Because the police had probable cause to arrest her under United States v. Watson, the arrest was lawfully set in motion in that public space. Her retreat into the house created a situation of 'hot pursuit,' justifying the warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence, consistent with the principles of Warden v. Hayden. The fact that the pursuit was short does not change its character as a 'hot pursuit,' and the subsequent search incident to the lawful arrest was valid.

Concurring - Mr. Justice White

The arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment. A warrant was not required to enter the house and make the arrest because the officers had probable cause to arrest Santana and to believe she was inside. This approach is consistent with the longstanding statutory and judicial rule in a majority of jurisdictions and avoids the need to reinterpret the Fourth Amendment to require a warrant in the absence of exigent circumstances.

Concurring - Mr. Justice Stevens

The warrantless entry was permissible. The police decision not to seek a warrant immediately after arresting McCafferty was justified by the exigent circumstance that there was a significant risk the marked money would be disposed of. Furthermore, any failure to obtain a warrant was harmless, as it would have been proper to surveil the residence while seeking a warrant, and Santana's appearance in plain view would have justified a warrantless arrest before a warrant could have been procured.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Marshall

The warrantless entry was not justified because the exigency that prompted it was a direct product of the police's own conduct. The officers chose to arrest McCafferty just a block and a half from Santana's home, which foreseeably created the need for a rapid, subsequent arrest of Santana. When police strategically time an arrest to manufacture exigent circumstances and circumvent the warrant requirement, any subsequent arrest or search should be held unlawful. The case should be remanded to determine if the police decision to arrest McCafferty so close to Santana's home was for the sole purpose of creating such an exigency.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the Fourth Amendment's protection within the home by defining an open doorway as a 'public place' for the purposes of initiating an arrest. It broadens the 'hot pursuit' doctrine, establishing that it does not require an extended chase and can apply to a suspect's immediate retreat from a public to a private space. This provides law enforcement with a clear justification for pursuing a suspect into a home without a warrant to complete an arrest that began in a publicly exposed area, especially when there is a risk of evidence destruction. The dissent raises a critical counterargument about police-created exigencies, a concept that remains a point of contention in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Santana (1976)

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

Premium Feature