For those who ENJOY brainstorming.

[217CJ]

ILLINOIS v. McARTHUR

Hello !!
I am currently working towards my degree in Criminal Law. Recently this case was brought to our attention and we were instructed to write a personal opinion on it. My report is already done, so I am not asking anyone to help me with my homework . I'm sure some of you have already heard of this case. What do you think?


A

On April 2, 1997, Tera McArthur asked two police officers to accompany her to the trailer where she lived with her husband, Charles, so that they could keep the peace while she removed her belongings. The two officers, Assistant Chief John Love and Officer Richard Skidis, arrived with Tera at the trailer at about 3:15 p.m. Tera went inside, where Charles was present. The officers remained outside.

When Tera emerged after collecting her possessions, she spoke to Chief Love, who was then on the porch. She suggested he check the trailer because "Chuck had dope in there." App. 15. She added (in Love's words) that she had seen Chuck "slid[e] some dope underneath the couch." Id., at 19.

Love knocked on the trailer door, told Charles what Tera had said, and asked for permission to search the trailer, which Charles denied. Love then sent Officer Skidis with Tera to get a search warrant.

Love told Charles, who by this time was also on the porch, that he could not reenter the trailer unless a police officer accompanied him. Charles subsequently reentered the trailer two or three times (to get cigarettes and to make phone calls), and each time Love stood just inside the door to observe what Charles did.

Officer Skidis obtained the warrant by about 5 p.m. He returned to the trailer and, along with other officers, searched it. The officers found under the sofa a marijuana pipe, a box for marijuana (called a "one-hitter" box), and a small amount of marijuana. They then arrested Charles.

B

Illinois subsequently charged Charles McArthur with unlawfully possessing drug paraphernalia and marijuana (less than 2.5 grams), both misdemeanors. See Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §§550/4(a), 600/3.5(a) (1998). McArthur moved to suppress the pipe, box, and marijuana on the ground that they were the "fruit" of an unlawful police seizure, namely, the refusal to let him reenter the trailer unaccompanied, which would have permitted him, he said, to "have destroyed the marijuana." App. 27.

The trial court granted McArthur's suppression motion. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed, 304 Ill. App. 3d 395, 713 N. E. 2d 93 (1999), and the Illinois Supreme Court denied the State's petition for leave to appeal, 185 Ill. 2d 651, 720 N. E. 2d 1101 (1999). We granted certiorari to determine whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the kind of temporary seizure at issue here.

III

In sum, the police officers in this case had probable cause to believe that a home contained contraband, which was evidence of a crime. They reasonably believed that the home's resident, if left free of any restraint, would destroy that evidence. And they imposed a restraint that was both limited and tailored reasonably to secure law enforcement needs while protecting privacy interests. In our view, the restraint met the Fourth Amendment's demands.

The judgment of the Illinois Appellate Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

[Samuel]

ILLINOIS v. McARTHUR

Hello !!
I am currently working towards my degree in Criminal Law. Recently this case was brought to our attention and we were instructed to write a personal opinion on it. My report is already done, so I am not asking anyone to help me with my homework . I'm sure some of you have already heard of this case. What do you think?

What do YOU think?

[mobrien316]

Why don't you post what you wrote in your report and we can offer our opinions of that instead?

[Curt581]

Wow... this Internet stuff is a heck of a lot easier than studying!

:cool:

[217CJ]

Thanks for the responses. Well, in our report writing we had to argue both sides of the case. As far as my personal opinion goes, I think holding the gentlemen outside for almost 2 hours was violating the 4th Amendment, which states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....

The prosecutor involved in this case had been involved in other cases involving McArthur, like DUI cases, minor traffic tickets, etc.. Most of us questioned maybe the prosecutor had a grudge or something against McArthur? I thought maybe he was just very strict and wanted justice to be served even though he was being tried on less than 2.5 grams of cannibis and drug paraphenilia.

[mobrien316]

Thanks for the responses. Well, in our report writing we had to argue both sides of the case. As far as my personal opinion goes, I think holding the gentlemen outside for almost 2 hours was violating the 4th Amendment, which states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....

The prosecutor involved in this case had been involved in other cases involving McArthur, like DUI cases, minor traffic tickets, etc.. Most of us questioned maybe the prosecutor had a grudge or something against McArthur? I thought maybe he was just very strict and wanted justice to be served even though he was being tried on less than 2.5 grams of cannibis and drug paraphenilia.

How is a two hour wait unreasonable? The officer had probable cause to believe a search of the house would yield evidence of a crime, and reason to believe that if he allowed the guy back into the house unattended he would destroy evidence. The officer showed consideration by letting the guy back into the house for innocuous errands, and was taking immediate, continuous steps to secure a warrant.

I think if you believe that is unreasonable you don't have a very good grasp of the meaning of the word as it relates to constitutional issues.

[mcsap]

Since we cant get warrants via a phone call, a 2 hour wait is certainly reasonable. He could have left and went to his mothers house if he was hot/cold.

The officers had reasonable and articulable suspicions that criminal activity was afoot. He chose to not let them in to search ( as is his right ) so the officers excercised their lawful authority to obtain a search warrant.

[Citicop]

Thanks for the responses. Well, in our report writing we had to argue both sides of the case. As far as my personal opinion goes, I think holding the gentlemen outside for almost 2 hours was violating the 4th Amendment, which states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....

The prosecutor involved in this case had been involved in other cases involving McArthur, like DUI cases, minor traffic tickets, etc.. Most of us questioned maybe the prosecutor had a grudge or something against McArthur? I thought maybe he was just very strict and wanted justice to be served even though he was being tried on less than 2.5 grams of cannibis and drug paraphenilia.

I would argue that he was not 'held outside' during this time. He was allowed into the trailer 2-3 times during the time period in question, and we have seen no facts here that he was not free to leave the scene if he had wanted to. He had not been 'seized' for 4th Amendment purposes at that time.

The trailer WAS seized during that time, but it was 'Upon Probable Cause' as cited in the Amendment. There was no illegal seizure here, and the search was legal as a warrant was obtained.

The argument that the seizure was illegal because it denied the suspect the opportunity to destroy the evidence is absurd. This is the reason for the seizure, and that has been upheld in numerous other case law as a valid reason for such action. In fact, destruction of evidence is one of several "exigent circumstances" which bypasses a warrant requirement.

The trial judge, IMHO, should be disbarred for granting that suppression motion.

Citicop.

[ChesCopPodz]

Thanks for the responses. Well, in our report writing we had to argue both sides of the case. As far as my personal opinion goes, I think holding the gentlemen outside for almost 2 hours was violating the 4th Amendment, which states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....

The prosecutor involved in this case had been involved in other cases involving McArthur, like DUI cases, minor traffic tickets, etc.. Most of us questioned maybe the prosecutor had a grudge or something against McArthur? I thought maybe he was just very strict and wanted justice to be served even though he was being tried on less than 2.5 grams of cannibis and drug paraphenilia.

Let me ask you this, was he HELD? Or just not allowed in? Whenever I freeze a house, which is when it's being held for a search warrant and the occupants are not allowed inside, the person is free to leave. For all I care, they can get in their car and drive away to wherever they want, they just can't go into the house until the valid warrant is obtained and the house is searched, or the warrant is denied.

If he was free to leave but chose to stay, it's not a 4th amendment issue.

[Roger Dat]

Agree with posters above. A person who is familiar with the contents of a trailer was willing to swear to a judge that illegal drugs were contained inside the trailer. The judge saw fit to issue a search warrant based on first hand knowlege from an occupant of the trailer. No issue with what they did.

[Johninaustin]

No 4th amendment violation. Nothing unreasonable about the wait or gaining control of the trailer.

[Mr. Peanut]

Illinois subsequently charged Charles McArthur with unlawfully possessing drug paraphernalia and marijuana (less than 2.5 grams), both misdemeanors. See Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §§550/4(a), 600/3.5(a) (1998). McArthur moved to suppress the pipe, box, and marijuana on the ground that they were the "fruit" of an unlawful police seizure, namely, the refusal to let him reenter the trailer unaccompanied, which would have permitted him, he said, to "have destroyed the marijuana." App. 27.

The trial court granted McArthur's suppression motion. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed, 304 Ill. App. 3d 395, 713 N. E. 2d 93 (1999), and the Illinois Supreme Court denied the State's petition for leave to appeal, 185 Ill. 2d 651, 720 N. E. 2d 1101 (1999). We granted certiorari to determine whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the kind of temporary seizure at issue here.

WTF, the trial court suppressed the evidence for the stated reason that the police didn't let him go in and destroy it? So any time officers serve a search warrant, do they have to call ahead and let the suspects know to start flushing?

[217CJ]

Ok, I agree with what has been said. My professor was the judge for this case in Cook County. He said he threw the case because the cops never should have obtained a search warrant. When his wife told the officers there was cannibis under the couch, and being the fact they were arguing, that the information she gave was strictly hear/say?:confused:

[Citicop]

Ok, I agree with what has been said. My professor was the judge for this case in Cook County. He said he threw the case because the cops never should have obtained a search warrant. When his wife told the officers there was cannibis under the couch, and being the fact they were arguing, that the information she gave was strictly hear/say?:confused:

But as a trial judge, it wasn't his place to question the validity of the warrant. It was signed by another judge, and was therefore valid. He would have been welcome to deny the warrant had it been presented to him, but it wasn't.

She told officers that she SAW him place it there. She had firsthand knowledge of the crime, the same as any informant does.

Rather than make a ruling based on the merits of the case, the judge (your professor?!?!?) ruled based on his personal opinion. I strongly dislike that style of judicial activism.

I'd be looking for another professor, if I were you.

Citicop.

[217CJ]

Agreed. Thanks.
He is retired now but yes he is my professor.