Supreme Court Limits Police Power to Detain Incident to a Search

Writing at the blog of the Cato Institute Ilya Shapiro highlights the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday in Bailey v. United States, a major Fourth Amendment case. He writes:

In Bailey, the Court rejected the argument that police should be able to detain someone anywhere at any time if they see that person exiting a location for which there’s a valid search warrant.  Instead, by a 6-3 vote in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled that the power to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant – established in the 1981 case of Michigan v. Summers – is limited to the “immediate vicinity” of the premises to be searched.  

The police may want broader detention powers, but none of the justifications for the Summers exception to the normal probable cause requirement – officer safety, facilitating the search, preventing flight – remain in cases where police detain someone beyond that immediate vicinity. In Bailey, police saw the defendent leave a home they were about to search and, rather than detaining him there and executing the search warrant, followed and subsequently stopped him nearly a mile away.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Think you may have meant "Search incident", not indicent.

  • Gray Ghost||

    As in 'Search incident to an arrest.' (Though that's a separate situation to the one you're describing in the post.) Not sure what indicent would otherwise mean.

  • ||

    "Indecent."

  • sloopyinca||

    Unfortunately, they went full fucking retard on the police dog case.

  • Libertymike||

    How about Justice Kagan's "reasoning" that a dog's actual performance in the field should not be considered in ascertaining whether the dog's olfactory senses are sufficiently reliable so as to constitute probalbe cause for a search?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    RECUSE THE KAGAN!!!!!!!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement