6.9: Maryland v. Buie
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
Maryland Jerome Edward Buie
LOCATION
Buie Residence
DOCKET NO. DECIDED BY
88-1369 Rehnquist Court
LOWER COURT
Maryland Court of Appeals
CITATION
494 US 325 (1990)
ARGUED
Dec 4, 1989
Decided
Feb 28, 1990
Granted
June 5, 1989
ADVOCATES
John L. Kopolow on behalf of the Respondent
Lawrence S. Robbins on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner
Facts of the case
On February 3, 1986, two men robbed a Godfather’s Pizza in Prince George’s County, Maryland. One of the men was wearing a red running suit. Later that day, the police obtained warrants for the arrest of Jerome Edward Buie and Lloyd Allen and put Buie’s house under surveillance. On February 5, the police arrested Buie in his house. Police found him hiding in the basement. Once Buie emerged and was handcuffed, an officer went down to determine if there was anyone else hiding. While in the basement, the officer saw a red running suit in plain view and seized it as evidence. The trial court denied Buie’s motion to suppress the running suit evidence, and he was convicted. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion. The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed.
Question
Does the Fourth Amendment prevent police officers from making a “protective sweep” at the site of an in-home arrest if they do not believe themselves or others to be in immediate danger?
| FOR | AGAINST |
|---|---|
|
Stevens Kennedy Scalia Blackmun O’Conner Rehnquist White |
Marshall Brennan |
Conclusion
7–2 Decision for Maryland Majority Opinion by Byron R. White
No. Justice Byron R. White delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority.
The Court held that the potential risk to police officers of another person on the arrest site must be weighed against the invasion of privacy. Because the arrest in this case happened in the suspect’s home, the officer was put at even greater risk because of the possibility of an ambush. This risk justified the protective sweep. The Court also held that a protective sweep was meant to be a cursory one, and not an in-depth search of the premises that would require a specific warrant.
In his concurring opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the state has the burden to prove that the search was protective in nature. He argued that the state must show that the officers had a “reasonable basis” for believing that there was a risk to themselves. In his concurring opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that he disagreed with Justice John Paul Stevens. He argued that the protective sweep was an element of police safety procedure, so the state did not have as high of a burden as Justice Stevens’ concurrence implied. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote a dissent where he argued that the protective sweep represented the type of intrusive unwarranted search that the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent.