Maryland v. Buie (1990)
US Supreme Court
P-Mac Daddy

Procedure: The petitioner lost at the trial court level, had his motion to suppress a running suit that detectives found in plain view and was convicted of an armed pizza shop robbery. The appeals court reversed his conviction, and the Supreme Court reverses the appeal court decision throwing out the conviction and reinstates the trial court finding.

Facts: On February 3, 1986, two men committed an armed robbery of a pizza parlor in Prince George’s County Maryland. One of the robbers was wearing a red jogging suit. The same day police obtained an arrest warrant for of the respondent Jerome Edward Buie and his suspected accomplice Lloyd Allen and Buie’s house was placed under police surveillance. On February 5, 1986 the police executed their arrest warrant for Buie, by having a female secretary call the house and confirm that Buie was in fact at the residence. 6 to 7 officers made entry into Buie’s house and fanned out in the process of searching the home to find Buie and any other accomplices of his that might be at his residence at the present time. One officer proceeded to the staircase leading to the basement, where he yelled police come with your hands high; Buie complied with the officer’s demand and was taken into custody. A detective arrived on the scene shortly after and did a through sweep of the basement to make sure that no other suspects were hiding down there. He discovered out in plain view a red jogging suit so he grabbed it and took it into evidence, it was ultimately ID as the clothes worn in the robbery and it was used against him at trial.

Issue: Whether this sweep done by the police detective after the defendant was in custody was reasonable and whether the jogging suit found as a result of the follow up sweep is admissible. Whether it was reasonable for him to see if there was anyone else there.

Ruling: (White) The 4^th Amendment bars unreasonable searches and seizures, there are other contexts, however, where public interest is such that neither a warrant nor probable cause is required. Terry authorized a limited pat down for weapons where a reasonably prudent officer would be warranted in the belief, based on specific and articulable facts and not on a mere “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual. Michigan v. Long said it reasonable for a policeman pursuant to an arrest to check a glove box for weapons a frisk of an automobile fro weapons. Terry and Long give us this notion of a protective sweep; the sweep lasts no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and in any event no longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises. The type of search we authorize today is far removed from the top to bottom type search involved in Chimel moreover it is decidedly not automatic but may be conducted only when justified by a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the house is harboring a person posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. With this in mind we vacate the appeals court decision to overturn the conviction, the 4^th amendment in no way prohibits this type of protective sweep police did in this situation. Also the jogging suit would get in under the plain sight rule exception, police not turning a blind eye to the obvious.

Dissenting: (Marshall & Brennan) today the court for the first time extends Terry v. Ohio into the home, dispensing with the 4^th amendment general requirements of a warrant and probable cause and carving a “reasonable suspicion” exception for protective sweeps in private dwellings. They believe police must have probable cause to fear that a hidden confederate of an arrestee might harm them before they may sweep an entire home. The state court determined that the police did not have probable cause, therefore they were not lawfully in the basement and they would affirm the appeal court decision to suppress the incriminating evidence.