United States v. Wilson:   
United States Supreme Court, 1976. 

Statement of the Case:

      Government is prosecuting Wilson for mail tampering when he was arrested without a warrant by a Postal Service inspector, pursuant to a Statute that only requires probable cause to make an arrest.

Procedure:

      Trial court convicted.  Appellate court overturned the conviction, claiming this was an illegal arrest.

Facts:

      Informant told a postal inspector that ? had stolen credit cards. The inspector told the informant to hold a meeting with the defendant and if the defendant had stolen credit cards with him, the informant was supposed to give a signal to the inspector if he had the cards.

      The meeting took place in a restaurant and the informant gave the signal and the defendant was arrested. Inspector found no credit cards with the defendant, but upon the consent of the defendant, the inspector searched the car and found 2 stolen credit cards and the defendant was convicted.

Issue:

      Whether a warrant is needed to make an arrest when a Statute specifically grants the right for an enforcement agency to make an arrest only on the basis of probable cause.

Procedural Result:

      Judgment reversed for the Government.

Holding:

      A warrant is NOT needed to make an arrest when a Statute specifically grants the right for an enforcement agency to make an arrest only on the basis of probable cause.

Reasoning:

• It was a common rule and it is accepted by majority of the States and by Congress that a peace officer can arrest a person for felony or misdemeanor when it takes place in his presence and he can arrest a felon when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the felony took place.
• The court held that it was not ready to restrict this rule and it ruled that the arrest was lawful.
• Rule:  Officers can arrest someone suspected of a felony based only on whether there was probable cause, not requiring a warrant.
• This rule stands.

Concurring:

• Arrest is a serious personal intrusion, but no evidence the founders were worries about an abuse of warrantless arrests.
• Historical and policy reasons are good enough to keep the standard.

Dissent:

• The arrest was fine, because of the “exigent-circumstances” exception, but finding that no warrant is necessary because of historical reasons flies in the face of the constitution, since there is no reason the 4^th amendment warrant requirement does not apply to arrests.
• Test about whether presumption of favoring a warrant should be given effect where a warrant has not previously been required:

1. whether the privacy of the citizens will be better protected by ordinarily requiring a warrant before a man may be arrested, and

2. whether a warrant requirement will unduly burden legitimate government interests.

Additional Points: 

• Gerstein v. Pugh: 
  • 4^th Amendment requires judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint on liberty after arrest.

• County of Riverside v. McLaughlin: 
  • “Prompt” determination is 2 days, excluding holidays and weekends.
  • Scalia’s dissent:  24 hours is enough.