Ybarra v. Illinois
444 U.S. 85 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person's mere presence on premises that police have a warrant to search does not, by itself, provide the constitutional justification to search that person. The Fourth Amendment requires that a search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that individual.
Facts:
- An informant told an Illinois Bureau of Investigation agent that the bartender, 'Greg,' at the Aurora Tap Tavern was selling heroin.
- Based on the informant's tip, a judge issued a search warrant authorizing the search of the Aurora Tap Tavern and the person of 'Greg' for heroin and related paraphernalia.
- On March 1, 1976, several police officers entered the tavern to execute the warrant and announced they would conduct a 'cursory search for weapons' on all patrons present.
- An officer performed a pat-down search on Ventura Ybarra, a customer who was standing by a pinball machine, and felt what he described as 'a cigarette pack with objects in it.'
- The officer did not remove the pack, but after patting down other customers, returned to Ybarra approximately 2 to 10 minutes later, frisked him again, and retrieved the cigarette pack.
- The cigarette pack contained six tinfoil packets of heroin.
- At no point before or during the search did Ybarra make any suspicious gestures or statements, nor did the police have any particular information linking him to criminal activity.
Procedural Posture:
- Ventura Ybarra was indicted by an Illinois grand jury for unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
- Ybarra filed a pretrial motion in the Illinois trial court to suppress the evidence seized from his person, which the court denied.
- Following a bench trial, Ybarra was found guilty.
- Ybarra appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Illinois Supreme Court denied Ybarra's petition for leave to appeal.
- Ybarra then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.
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 search of a person who is merely present on premises being searched pursuant to a valid warrant, but for whom there is no individualized probable cause to search or reasonable suspicion that they are armed and dangerous, violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
Yes. The search of Ybarra violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because a warrant to search a place does not grant authority to search every person found within it. A search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person, and mere propinquity to others suspected of criminal activity is insufficient to create such cause. The initial pat-down of Ybarra was also unconstitutional under Terry v. Ohio because the officers lacked a reasonable and articulable suspicion that Ybarra himself was armed and dangerous; his presence in a tavern where drugs were suspected to be sold was not enough to justify a protective frisk.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. The search of Ybarra was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and should be upheld. When executing a valid warrant in a confined and potentially dangerous location known for narcotics trafficking, police officers should be permitted to conduct a protective frisk of all persons present for their safety. The standard for this action should be overall reasonableness, not the individualized suspicion required for a street encounter under Terry. The officer's discovery of a suspicious object during this justified frisk provided a reasonable basis to retrieve the item, which was closely linked to the purpose of the search warrant.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
No. The Court's holding unjustifiably narrows the rule of Terry v. Ohio and ignores the practical dangers faced by officers executing a narcotics warrant. When police enter a place of known narcotics activity, the high potential for danger justifies a protective Terry search of all patrons present to ensure officer safety. The officers were not required to be foolhardy and assume the patrons were unarmed. The retrieval of the heroin was a continuation of the initial, valid protective search.
Analysis:
Ybarra v. Illinois firmly established that a search warrant for a premises does not create a 'search zone' where the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals are diminished. The decision reinforces the core principle of 'particularized suspicion,' demanding that any search of a person, whether based on probable cause or the lesser standard for a Terry frisk, must be justified by facts specific to that individual. This ruling significantly limits law enforcement's authority to conduct searches of non-suspect individuals who happen to be present during the execution of a search warrant, thereby protecting citizens from searches based solely on their location.
Unlock the full brief for Ybarra v. Illinois