NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2001

The man was charged with marijuana possession but wanted the evidence suppressed because he said the police had impounded his house.

The Illinois dispute is just the latest in a series of Supreme Court cases dealing with how police interact with the public, including traffic stops, anonymous tips and a variety of search situations.

The case began in April 1997 in Sullivan, Ill., when Tera McArthur asked police to accompany her as she moved her belongings out of a trailer home, and told them, by the way, that she had seen her estranged husband, Charles McArthur, hide marijuana underneath the couch.

Assistant Police Chief John Love knocked on the door, told McArthur what was going on, and asked permission to search. McArthur stepped out of the trailer but refused to give officers permission to enter, court records said. Love turned to Mrs. McArthur and asked if she would tell her story to a judge so officers could obtain a search warrant. She said yes, and one of the officers accompanied her to the local judges' chambers.

Love remained behind with McArthur but did not put him under arrest. Instead, when McArthur asked permission to go back inside to wait, again according to court records, Love said no.

McArthur did enter the trailer briefly a couple of times to get cigarettes and make telephone calls, court records added, but the officer stood in the doorway and observed him at all times.

Other officers finally arrived several hours later with the warrant. Police found a small amount of marijuana under the couch and arrested McArthur.

However, a state judge suppressed the marijuana evidence, and state appeals courts affirmed the judge. The state then asked the Supreme Court for review, which was granted.

The Supreme Court heard argument last November and on Tuesday reversed the lower courts.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said it was up to the Supreme Court to decide if the officers conducted an "unreasonable" seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, when they prevented McArthur from going back inside his home. "We conclude that the officers acted reasonably," Breyer said.

Several circumstances led to that conclusion, the justice added later in his opinion. "First, the police had probable cause to believe that McArthur's trailer home contained evidence of a crime and contraband, namely, unlawful drugs," Breyer said.

"… Second, the police had good reason to fear that, unless restrained, McArthur would destroy the drugs before they could return with a warrant."

Third, the police made "reasonable efforts to reconcile their law enforcement needs with the demands of personal privacy," Breyer said. "They neither searched the trailer nor arrested McArthur before obtaining a warrant. …

"Fourth, the police imposed the restraint for a limited period of time, namely, two hours."

Justice John Paul Stevens, like Breyer a liberal, was the only dissenter. He said the state courts got it right.

"Each of the Illinois jurists who participated in the decision of this case placed a higher value on the sanctity of the ordinary citizen's home than on the prosecution of this petty offense," Stevens said. "They correctly viewed that interest – whether the home be a humble cottage, a second-hand trailer or a stately mansion – as one meriting the most serious constitutional protection."

Tuesday's ruling sends the case back down for another hearing based on the Supreme Court decision.

(No. 99-1132, Illinois vs. McArthur)

Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved.