Illinois v. McArthur
Encyclopedia
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court
case decided in 2001. The case concerned the extent of the government’s power to limit an individual’s possessory interest in his or her home pending the arrival of a search warrant.
wrote a brief dissent arguing that the case should have been dismissed because the Illinois legislature has largely reduced penalties for marijuana possession (making it ridiculous for the officers to rush to get a warrant). He said that even if he reached the merits of the question, he would affirm and hold the search unconstitutional because the majority misapplied a balancing of “privacy-related and law enforcement-related concerns".
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...
case decided in 2001. The case concerned the extent of the government’s power to limit an individual’s possessory interest in his or her home pending the arrival of a search warrant.
Background
Tera McArthur asked two police officers to accompany her to a trailer home where she lived with her husband Charles, so that she could take her belongings out of the home. Just after she came out of the trailer, she told the police that Charles McArthur had drugs inside. The police knocked and asked Charles if they could search, which he refused. He then came out of the trailer; an officer prevented him from going back inside while the other policeman rushed to get a warrant. The Illinois Appellate Court held that this action violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case in 2000.Opinion of the Court
The Court voted 8-1 to reverse the Illinois Appellate Court to hold the actions of the police officers at question constitutional.Majority opinion
Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion, upholding the search. Due to the exact nature of the circumstances, the police needed to prevent the investigation scene from being contaminated. Breyer writes that "We have found no case in which this Court has held unlawful a temporary seizure that was supported by probable cause and was designed to prevent the loss of evidence while the police diligently obtained a warrant in a reasonable period of time." He noted in conclusion that the hard-to-contest fact of probable cause made it difficult to accept McArthur's claims.Souter's concurrence
Justice Souter joined Breyer's opinion in all respects but wrote separately to condition his support on the belief that the search was appropriate only because of the immediate danger that the evidence could have been destroyed. Only in this unique instance could the warrant requirement be waived.Justice Stevens' dissent
Justice StevensJohn Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
wrote a brief dissent arguing that the case should have been dismissed because the Illinois legislature has largely reduced penalties for marijuana possession (making it ridiculous for the officers to rush to get a warrant). He said that even if he reached the merits of the question, he would affirm and hold the search unconstitutional because the majority misapplied a balancing of “privacy-related and law enforcement-related concerns".