Criminal Law Summaries
FindLaw > Criminal Law Summaries > Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
Fourth Amendment Refusal To Allow Re-Entry Into Home
Case: Illinois v. McArthur
Issue: Whether police, who had probable cause to believe that the defendant hid marijuana in his home, violated the Fourth Amendment by preventing him from re-entering the home until officers returned with a search warrant.
Facts: Tesa McArthur asked two police officers, Assistant Chief John Love and Officer Richard Skidis, to accompany her to the trailer where she lived with her husband, Charles McArthur, in order to keep the peace while she removed her belongings. After she had collected her belongings and emerged from the trailer, Ms. McArthur suggested to Chief Love that he search the trailer because Chuck had dope there. She added that she had seen her husband hide marijuana under the sofa. In response, Love knocked on the trailer door, informed Charles McArthur what Tesa McArthur had told him, and asked permission to search the trailer. Charles McArthur denied Loves request and Love sent Officer Skidis, along with Ms. McArthur, to obtain a search warrant. Love informed Charles McArthur, who came out onto the porch, that he could not re-enter the trailer unless accompanied by Love. Subsequently, Charles McArthur re-entered the trailer two or three times, to make phone calls and obtain cigarettes, and each time Love stood just inside the door to observe him. After two hours, Officer Skidis returned with a search warrant. During the subsequent search, police found a marijuana pipe, a marijuana box, and a small amount of marijuana hidden underneath the sofa.
McArthur was charged with unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia and marijuana (less than 2.5 grams), both misdemeanors. He moved to suppress the pipe, box, and marijuana on the ground that police had committed an unlawful seizure, namely, Loves refusal to allow McArthur to re-enter the trailer alone, which would have permitted McArthur, in his own words, to have destroyed the marijuana. The trial court granted McArthurs motion and the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court denied the states petition for leave to appeal, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Holding: The restriction on McArthur was reasonable, and hence lawful, in light of the circumstances of the case.
Reasoning: In an 8-1 decision, the Court, through Justice Breyer, held that the warrantless seizure was not per se unreasonable, as it involved exigent circumstances. Balancing privacy and law enforcement interests to determine whether the intrusion was reasonable, the Court found the following factors significant. First, the police had probable cause to believe that McArthurs home contained evidence of a crime and contraband. Second, the police had good reason to fear that unless McArthur was restrained, he would destroy the evidence before a warrant could be obtained. Third, police made reasonable efforts to accommodate demands of personal privacy with their law enforcement needs; namely, they did not search the trailer or arrest McArthur before a warrant was obtained. Fourth, the police imposed the restraint for a limited time period (two hours) that was no longer than reasonably necessary for the police, acting with diligence, to obtain a warrant. Summarizing prior cases, the Court concluded: We have found no case in which this Court has held unlawful a temporary seizure that was supported by probable cause and was designed to prevent the loss of evidence while the police diligently obtained a warrant in a reasonable period of time.
The Court also rejected concerns raised by McArthur and the lower courts. The Illinois Appellate Court concluded that Loves order to McArthur to remain outside the home when McArthur was on his porch amounted to a constructive eviction since the porch constituted part of McArthurs home. Noting prior decisions in which it had held that a person standing in a doorway of a home is in a public place, the Court here concluded that it was not significant for Fourth Amendment purposes whether McArthur was on his porch or the front walk when Love issued his orders. The Court also found insignificant Loves action of stepping inside the door when McArthur re-entered the trailer, concluding that the reasonableness of the greater restriction (preventing re-entry) implies the reasonableness of the lesser (permitting re-entry conditioned on observation). Finally, the Court found it significant that the crimes at issue were jailable offenses. This distinguished the case from Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984), where the Court held that police could not enter a home without a warrant in order to prevent the loss of evidence (the defendants blood alcohol level) relating to the non-jailable offense of driving while intoxicated.
Other Opinions: In a concurrence, Justice Souter stated that the probability of McArthurs immediate destruction of evidence before a search warrant could be obtained exemplifies the kind of present risk that undergirds the accepted exigent circumstances exception to the general warrant requirement, and therefore would have justified a prompt, warrantless search of the trailer. Once McArthur stepped outside, the risk of evidence destruction abated and so did the reasonableness of entry by the police. Why, Souter asked rhetorically, was it reasonable to keep McArthur out when, if police had allowed him to go back in unaccompanied, they would again have had exigent circumstances to search? Souter answered that the legitimacy of the decision to effectively impound the trailer followed from the laws strong preference for warrants. The law can hardly raise incentives to obtain a warrant without giving the police a fair chance to take their probable cause to a magistrate and get one.
In dissent, Justice Stevens argued that the majority struck the wrong balance between privacy and law enforcement interests. Each of the Illinois jurists who participated in this decision placed a higher value on the sanctity of the ordinary citizens home than on the prosecution of this petty offense.