 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Payton v. New York, 445
U.S. 573
Author:- Molly
Facts: After 2 days of intensive investigation, New York detectives assembled enough evidence to establish probable cause to believe that Payton had murdered a man 2 days earlier. 6 officers entered his apt, intending to arrest him. They had not obtained a search warrant. There were lights and music but no response to their knocks. They summoned assistance and 30 minutes later went into Payton's apt by breaking down the door. No one was there but in plain view was a .30-caliber shell casing that was seized and later admitted into evidence at Payton's murder trial. Payton surrendered to the police, and moved to suppress the evidence taken from his home. It was upheld that that the warrantless and forcible entry was authorized by the New York Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the evidence in plain view was properly seized.
Companion Case: Obie Riddick was arrested for 2 armed robberies. Police learned his address, but did not obtain a search warrant before they went to his house to arrest him. Riddick's 3 yr old son answered their knock. Police saw Riddick on the bed and proceeded to arrest him. They also searched the area and found narcotics and paraphernalia. He was indicted on narcotics charges. At this suppression hearing the trial judge held that the warrantless entry was authorized by the same New York statute and the search of the immediate area was reasonable under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752.
Constitutional Issue: Does the 4th amendment, as made applicable to the states by the due process clause of the 14th amendment, prohibit police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest, thus making the New York statute that allows police officers to do so unconstitutional?
Holding: Yes
Opinion of the Court: Since the New York Court of Appeals majority treated both cases as involving routine arrests with ample time to gain a warrant; the Supreme Court will do the same. This throws out any "exigent circumstances" argument that would justify a warrantless entry into a home. Nor is any question raised in these cases concerning the authority of the police, without a warrant, to enter a 3rd party's home to arrest a suspect. Both were in their own homes and police had reason to believe they were at home. Neither is probable cause argued in either case. Both cases are dealing with entries into homes made without the consent of any occupant. The plain language of the first clause of the 4th amendment condemns unreasonable searches and seizures conducted without any warrant at all. The "physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the 4th amendment is directed." An entry to arrest and an entry to search for and to seize property implicate the same interest in preserving the privacy and sanctity of the home, and justify the same level of constitutional protection. The fourth amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not be reasonably crossed. Common law is not an issue due to the old adage that "a man's home is his castle." This strongly suggests that the prevailing practice was not to make such arrests without a warrant. Neither is a longstanding, widespread practice an issue. Only 24 of the 50 states sanction warrantless searches and this number is on the decline. Thus, for 4th amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within. Because no arrest warrant was obtained in either case, the judgments must be reversed.
Dissenting Opinion: Justice White, Chief justice, and Rehnquist join, dissenting: Absent exigent circumstances, the Court holds that officers may never enter a home during the daytime to arrest for a dangerous felony unless they have first obtained a warrant. This finds little or no support in the common law or in the text and history of the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment protects people, not places. Four restrictions (felony, knock and announce, daytime, and stringent probable cause) constitute powerful and complementary protections for the privacy interests associated with the home. These restrictions allow an offender to surrender at the front door and are no more intrusive or humiliating than a public arrest held constitutional in Watson. Making police obtain a warrant would also place and undue burden on them and may allow a suspect to flee or valuable evidence to be lost or destroyed.
Principle of law: Police must have consent and a warrant to enter into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest.