Maryland v. Buie
Encyclopedia
Maryland v. Buie was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States
handed down in 1990. In the case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment
permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest
when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.
restaurant during which one of the robbers wore a red running suit, police officers in Prince George's County, Maryland
obtained arrest warrants for Jerome Edward Buie and Lloyd Allen. While executing the arrest warrant
, the officers fanned out through the first and second floors.
During this same time, one of the officers executing the arrest warrant twice shouted into the basement, ordering anyone down there to come out. A voice inquired who was calling, to which the officer responded "this is the police, show me your hands." Buie emerged from the basement. He was arrested, searched, and handcuffed by Rozar. Thereafter, another officer entered the basement to check whether there was someone else down there. He noticed a red running suit lying in plain view on a stack of clothing and seized it.
The trial court denied Buie's motion to suppress the running suit before trial and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals
affirmed. By a 4-3 vote, the Maryland Court of Appeals
, the state supreme court
, reversed. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari
.
The real issue in this case is the plain view doctrine
of the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, the plain view doctrine allows a police officer to seize contraband or evidence in plain view without first obtaining a warrant provided that (1) he or she was lawfully located in the area where the evidence was observed and (2) the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately apparent. Because the description of the bank robber included a red running suit, the "immediately apparent" prong was satisfied. The only question was whether the officer that made the observation was lawfully in the basement when he made the observation.
relied on Terry v. Ohio
, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permitting officers to conduct frisk of individual upon reasonable, articulable suspicion that person was armed and dangerous) and Michigan v. Long
, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (permitting protective pat-down of motor vehicle for officer safety). Utilizing the balancing test set forth in those opinions (need for officer security v. nature of intrusion), Justice White reasoned that the "arresting officers are permitted in such circumstances to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety after, and while making, the arrest." According to White, "[t]hat interest [officer safety] is sufficient to outweigh the intrusion such procedures may entail."
Justice White set forth a two-part holding:
Justice White distinguished the case of Chimel v. California
, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), which held that in the absence of a search warrant, justifiable searches incident to a lawful arrest
could not extend beyond the arrestee's person and the area from within which the arrestee might have obtained a weapon. First, Justice White explained that the search in Chimel was a full-blown search of the entire house. Moreover, the search was conducted for the purpose of finding evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made. In contrast, the officers in Buie were not looking for contraband. Second, Justice White explained that the possible threat was different. "The justification for the search incident to arrest considered in Chimel was the threat posed by the arrestee, not the safety threat posed by the house, or more properly by unseen third parties in the house." The type of search authorized by the court in Buie is far removed from the top-to-bottom search involved in Chimel. It is not automatically permitted, and is only properly 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.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
handed down in 1990. In the case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest
Arrest
An arrest is the act of depriving a person of his or her liberty usually in relation to the purported investigation and prevention of crime and presenting into the criminal justice system or harm to oneself or others...
when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.
Facts
Following an armed robbery of a pizzaPizza
Pizza is an oven-baked, flat, disc-shaped bread typically topped with a tomato sauce, cheese and various toppings.Originating in Italy, from the Neapolitan cuisine, the dish has become popular in many parts of the world. An establishment that makes and sells pizzas is called a "pizzeria"...
restaurant during which one of the robbers wore a red running suit, police officers in Prince George's County, Maryland
Prince George's County, Maryland
Prince George's County is a county located in the U.S. state of Maryland, immediately north, east, and south of Washington, DC. As of 2010, it has a population of 863,420 and is the wealthiest African-American majority county in the nation....
obtained arrest warrants for Jerome Edward Buie and Lloyd Allen. While executing the arrest warrant
Arrest warrant
An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by and on behalf of the state, which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual.-Canada:Arrest warrants are issued by a judge or justice of the peace under the Criminal Code of Canada....
, the officers fanned out through the first and second floors.
During this same time, one of the officers executing the arrest warrant twice shouted into the basement, ordering anyone down there to come out. A voice inquired who was calling, to which the officer responded "this is the police, show me your hands." Buie emerged from the basement. He was arrested, searched, and handcuffed by Rozar. Thereafter, another officer entered the basement to check whether there was someone else down there. He noticed a red running suit lying in plain view on a stack of clothing and seized it.
The trial court denied Buie's motion to suppress the running suit before trial and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals
Maryland Court of Special Appeals
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals is the intermediate appellate court for the U.S. state of Maryland. The Court of Special Appeals was created in 1966 in response to the rapidly growing caseload in the Maryland Court of Appeals. Like the state's highest court, the tribunal meets in the Robert C...
affirmed. By a 4-3 vote, the Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals of Maryland is the supreme court of the U.S. state of Maryland. The court, which is composed of one chief judge and six associate judges, meets in the Robert C. Murphy Courts of Appeal Building in the state capital, Annapolis...
, the state supreme court
State supreme court
In the United States, the state supreme court is the highest state court in the state court system ....
, reversed. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
.
The real issue in this case is the plain view doctrine
Plain view doctrine
The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize--without a warrant--evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation. This doctrine is also regularly used by TSA Federal Government Officers while screening persons and property at U.S...
of the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, the plain view doctrine allows a police officer to seize contraband or evidence in plain view without first obtaining a warrant provided that (1) he or she was lawfully located in the area where the evidence was observed and (2) the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately apparent. Because the description of the bank robber included a red running suit, the "immediately apparent" prong was satisfied. The only question was whether the officer that made the observation was lawfully in the basement when he made the observation.
Justice White's majority opinion
In upholding the legality of the entry into the basement and subsequent seizure of the running suit, Justice Byron WhiteByron White
Byron Raymond "Whizzer" White won fame both as a football halfback and as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Appointed to the court by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, he served until his retirement in 1993...
relied on Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police...
, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permitting officers to conduct frisk of individual upon reasonable, articulable suspicion that person was armed and dangerous) and Michigan v. Long
Michigan v. Long
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with reasonable suspicion. The case also clarified and narrowed the extent of adequate and independent state ground,...
, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (permitting protective pat-down of motor vehicle for officer safety). Utilizing the balancing test set forth in those opinions (need for officer security v. nature of intrusion), Justice White reasoned that the "arresting officers are permitted in such circumstances to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety after, and while making, the arrest." According to White, "[t]hat interest [officer safety] is sufficient to outweigh the intrusion such procedures may entail."
Justice White set forth a two-part holding:
- As an incident to the arrest officers may, as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched. This portion of the holding has recently been called into question.
- If an officer wishes to conduct a sweep of the premises, there must be articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.
Justice White distinguished the case of Chimel v. California
Chimel v. California
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , is a Supreme Court of the United States case handed down in 1969. In the case, the Court held that police officers arresting a person in their home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, although they can search the area within immediate...
, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), which held that in the absence of a search warrant, justifiable searches incident to a lawful arrest
Searches incident to a lawful arrest
In most cases, a search warrant is required to perform a lawful search. An long-recognized exception to this requirement is searches incident to a lawful arrest. This rule permits an officer to perform a warrantless search during or immediately after a lawful arrest...
could not extend beyond the arrestee's person and the area from within which the arrestee might have obtained a weapon. First, Justice White explained that the search in Chimel was a full-blown search of the entire house. Moreover, the search was conducted for the purpose of finding evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made. In contrast, the officers in Buie were not looking for contraband. Second, Justice White explained that the possible threat was different. "The justification for the search incident to arrest considered in Chimel was the threat posed by the arrestee, not the safety threat posed by the house, or more properly by unseen third parties in the house." The type of search authorized by the court in Buie is far removed from the top-to-bottom search involved in Chimel. It is not automatically permitted, and is only properly 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.