Maryland v. Buie (1989)
- Docket
- 88-1369
- Decided
- 1989-01-01
Summary
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? Conclusion: 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. He also argued that the majority opinion’s limits as to the scope and timeliness of the protective search are not enough to prevent the police from abusing such an unwarranted search. Justice Thurgood Marshall joined the dissent.