|
|
Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585 (1968)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585 (1968)
Sabbath v. United States No. 898 Argued May 2, 1968 Decided June 3, 1968 391 U.S. 585
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
One Jones was apprehended crossing the border from Mexico with cocaine, allegedly given to him by, and to be delivered to, "Johnny" in Los Angeles. Customs officers arranged for Jones to make delivery. Shortly after Jones entered "Johnny’s" apartment, customs agents, without a warrant, knocked on the door, waited a few seconds, and, receiving no response, opened the unlocked door and entered. They arrested petitioner, searched the apartment, and found the cocaine and other items. The cocaine was introduced over objection at petitioner’s trial for knowingly importing and concealing narcotics, and he was convicted. The Court of Appeals held that the agents did not "break open" the door within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3109, which provides in part that an
officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house . . . to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him,
and that they were therefore not required to make a prior announcement of "authority and purpose."
Held:
1. The validity of an entry of a federal officer to effect a warrantless arrest "must be tested by criteria identical to those embodied in" 18 U.S.C. § 3109, which deals with an entry to execute a search warrant. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301; Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471. Pp. 588-589.
2. Section 3109, a codification of the common law rule of announcement, basically proscribes an unannounced intrusion into a dwelling, which includes opening a closed but unlocked door. Pp. 589-591.
3. Whether or not exigent circumstances would excuse compliance with § 3109, here there were none, as the agents had no basis for assuming petitioner was armed or that he might resist arrest, or that Jones was in danger. P. 591.
380 F.2d 108, reversed and remanded.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585 (1968) in 391 U.S. 585 391 U.S. 586. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DTIBLKCT1NNKURC.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585 (1968), in 391 U.S. 585, page 391 U.S. 586. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DTIBLKCT1NNKURC.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585 (1968). cited in 1968, 391 U.S. 585, pp.391 U.S. 586. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DTIBLKCT1NNKURC.
|