Johnson v. United States
U.S. Supreme Crt. (1948) 333 U.S. 10, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. 436
Author: Michele M. Bernard

Pro. His: An appeal from the District Court to suppress evidence of opium smoking before trial that was admitted over the defendant's objection. Conviction resulted and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Facts: An informant told police (Detective Lieutenant Belland) that people were smoking Opium in a room in the Europe Hotel. The manager was contacted who also said they could smell it. The police followed to the room and could smell opium from inside the room outside the door. They knocked, identified themselves as the police, and the person, the female appellant, let them in. As soon as she let them in, the police told them to consider themselves under arrest because they were going to search the room. The search turned up incriminating opium, smoking apparatus, the latter being warm, apparently from recent use. The defendant challenged the search of her home (they were living in the hotel) as a violation of the rights secured to her in common with others, by the Fourth Amendment.

Issue: Was the arrest unlawful?

Holding: Yes.

Reasoning: Entry to defendan'ts living quarters was demanded under color of office. It was granted in submission toauthority rather than as an understanding and intentional waiver of a constitutional right. At this time, the officers needed evidence which a judge might have found to be probable cause for a search warrant. Probable cause must be made by a judge, not police officers. Police cannot make assumptions to what a judge would decide, because it would reduce the 4th Amendment to nullity and leave the people's homes secure only in the discretion of police officers.

Rule: When the right of provacy must reasonable yield to the right of search is to be dicided by a judge, not by a policeman to Government enforcement agent.

Dicta: No reason is offered for not obtaining a search warrent except the inconvenience to the officers and some slight delay necessary to prepare papers and present the evidence to a judge. this is not a good enough reason to bypass the constitutional requirement.