POLICE Magazine

MAR 2019

Magazine for police and law enforcement

Issue link: https://policemag.epubxp.com/i/1088348

Contents of this Issue


Page 44 of 80

42 P O L I C E M A R C H 2 019 After stopping the men, the detec- tives patted them down to check for hard objects that might be used as weapons. Bailey told Sneider that he was coming from his house at "103 Lake Drive." Middleton also identified Bai- ley's residence as 103 Lake Drive. At that time, the detectives placed both men in handcuffs and explained they were being detained, not arrested, "incident to the execution of a search warrant in the basement apartment of 103 Lake Drive." Bailey then responded: "I don't live there. Anything you find there ain't mine, and I'm not cooperating with your investigation." e four men then drove back to 103 Lake Drive. When they arrived, Bailey and Middleton were told that during the search the police entry team had found a gun and drugs in plain view in the apartment. e police then arrest- ed the men, and seized Bailey's house and car keys incident to the arrest. Later that night, an officer found that one of the keys on Bailey's key ring opened the door of the basement apartment. In all, less than 10 minutes elapsed between Bailey's stop and his formal arrest. Bailey was charged with three federal offenses: possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-traf- ficking offense. At trial, Bailey filed a motion to sup- press the apartment key found on his key ring and the statements he made to Detectives Sneider and Gorbecki when they initially stopped him on the basis that they were obtained from an unrea- sonable seizure. e District Court denied the motion and held that Bailey's detention was per- missible under Michigan v. Summers. e Court of Appeals for the Second Cir- cuit affirmed the District Court's ruling, also finding that Bailey's detention was permissible under Summers. e Court of Appeals interpreted the Summers de- cision to "[a]uthorize law enforcement to detain the occupant of premises sub- ject to a valid search warrant when that person is seen leaving those premises and the detention is effected as soon as reasonably practical." THE SCOTUS RULING e United States Supreme Court grant- ed certiorari to address whether, un- der Summers, officers may detain oc- cupants who have left the immediate vicinity of the premises subject to the search warrant. e Court held that of- ficers have the authority to detain a sus- pect or departing occupant only in the immediate vicinity of premises to be searched. Once a departing suspect or occupant has left the immediate vicin- ity of the premises, officers must justify a detention under a different rationale such as a Terry stop based on reason- able suspicion or an arrest based on probable cause. Under the Fourth Amendment, sei- zures are reasonable if officers have probable cause to believe that an indi- vidual has committed a crime. is gen- eral rule, however, allows law enforce- ment officers some latitude to detain individuals without probable cause of a crime under certain circumstances. In Summers, the Supreme Court identified three important law enforcement inter- ests, which justify the detention of an occupant of a premises during the exe- cution of a proper search warrant: 1. Minimizing the risk of harm to offi- cers 2. Facilitating the orderly completion of the search warrant 3. And preventing flight in the event in- criminating evidence is found during the search. In reaching its decision in Bailey, the court compared the three interests found in Summers to the specific facts and circumstances present in Bailey. Considering the first interest, the Su- preme Court stated that during the exe- cution of a search warrant, specifically one involving a search for narcotics, occupants may become violent and at- tempt to conceal evidence. Officers are permitted to detain occupants to min- imize the risk of harm to both officers and the occupants of the premises. e Supreme Court found that in Bailey, the occupant had left the premises without knowledge of the impending search and did not pose a risk to officers during the execution of the warrant. e Supreme Court opined that if Bailey had returned to the premises while the search was underway, the police would have had POINT OF L AW The Court opined that if Bailey had returned to the premises while the search was underway, the police would have had justification to detain him. Bailey's attorneys filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search on the basis of an unreasonable seizure. PHOTO: POLICE FILE

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of POLICE Magazine - MAR 2019