By Christopher Doi
On February 19th, theSupreme Court announced that the detention of offsite occupants during awarranted search is an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment. In Bailey v.United States, law enforcement officers observed Bailey and another mandrive away from the premises prior to the execution of a search warrant. Theofficers subsequently followed and stopped both men approximately a mile away.During a pat down of Bailey, the officers’ discovered a key to the searchedpremises. The officers handcuffed and returnedboth men to the premises pursuant under the Summersrule. That rule articulated in Michiganv. Summers, allows law enforcement officers to detain occupants whileconducting their search. Bailey was charged with three drug and firearm-relatedfederal offenses. At trial, Baileymotioned to suppress the evidence of the key on grounds that it was obtained byduring an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment. After both the district courtand Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion, the Supreme Courtreversed, limiting the Summers ruleto the immediate vicinity to be searched.
Under the FourthAmendment, detentions incident to the execution of a search warrant must bereasonable in that the law enforcement’s interest outweighs the intrusion onpersonal liberty. The government raised three law enforcement interests, under Summers, to justify the offsite detentions.First, the government argued that offsite detentions are necessary in order toensure officer safety by limiting the risk that individuals will return while the searchis in progress, limiting the risk that officers conducting the search wouldhave to confront dangerous individuals,and limiting the risk that an individual offsite might alert other onsiteoccupants. The Court rejected thisargument, explaining that officer safety can be achieved through othernon-intrusive means.
Second, the governmentargued that law enforcement interest in promoting efficiency of a searchjustifies the detention and return of individuals to the premises. The Court alsorejected this argument, reasoning that only the detention of occupants in the immediatevicinity of the search is justified to prevent occupants from interfering with theongoing search.
Third, the governmentargued that it has an interest in preventing individuals from fleeing onceincriminating evidence is discovered during a search. The Court agreed that unrestrained occupantscould adversely affect law enforcement if they believe the occupant could flee;however, the Court reasoned that allowing offsite detention was too broad andcould justify any detention during the course of a search, even of a person tenmiles away.
In an unusual alliance,Justices Breyer, Thomas, and Alito joined in a dissent arguing that the offsitedetention was justified because the detention was effected as soon asreasonably practicable. However, six justices, including conservative JusticesAnthony Kennedy and John Roberts, joined to hold that police can’t simply detainpeople far away from a property being searched. After Floridav. Harris, Johnsonv. Williams, and Chaidezv. United States spelled arough week for the rights of Americans accused of and charged with crimes, Bailey was a victory for the FourthAmendment.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder