Illinois v. McArthur, Charles (02/20/2001)
By: Josh Karp, Medill News Service
Questions presented
Whether police violated the 4th Amendment rights of an individual when they ""secured"" the person's premises and refused to allow him to re-enter without police accompaniment.
Brief
On April 2, 1997, two Sullivan, Ill., police officers accompanied Tera McArthur to the trailer where she lived with her husband Charles. Standing outside, after removing her personal belongings, McArthur's wife told police that her husband had marijuana hidden under a couch in the trailer.
Officer John Love knocked on the door of the trailer and Charles McArthur answered. Standing outside the trailer, McArthur denied that there were drugs inside and refused Love's request for a warrantless search of the premises.
While a warrant was obtained, Love did not allow McArthur to enter the trailer alone. This was done to prevent any destruction or disposal of evidence.
On two or three occasions, McArthur re-entered the trailer, accompanied by Love, to get cigarettes and use the phone.
Two hours later, police arrived with a warrant, located marijuana under the couch and arrested McArthur.
McArthur was charged with unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia and cannabis.
McArthur's attorneys filed a motion to suppress evidence found inside the trailer, contending that his 4th amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure had been violated when McArthur was unable to re-enter his home for two hours without police accompaniment.
The circuit court of Moultrie County granted McArthur's motion and the state appealed.
The issue before the Illinois Appellate Court for the 4th District was whether the securing of McArthur's dwelling and his inability to re-enter without police amounted to a violation of his 4th amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.
The appellate court affirmed, finding that Officer Love's entrance into the trailer with McArthur amounted to an interference with both his possessory interest (seizure) and his privacy interest (search). Additionally, because no exigent circumstances existed tojustify such interference, the police conduct in securing McArthur's residence was ""certainly"" an unreasonable seizure and ""probably"" an unreasonable search, the court said.
In Judge Robert W. Cook's opinion, the court found, despite the existence of probable cause to secure the trailer, that police conduct ""amounted to a constructive eviction.""
The court distinguished the case from those in which a defendant is not on the premises when police arrive or where police secure the premises from the outside. Specifically, the court examined the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Segura v. United States, where police arrested a man in the lobby of his apartment, returned with him to the apartment, arrested everyone on the premises and then had two officers secure the residence from the inside for 19 hours while a warrant was obtained.
The Illiinois Appellate Court found that Segura was distinguishable because the defendants in that case were in custody at the time the apartment was secured. The court quoted Justice Warren Burger's opinion in Segura, which stated, ""the actual interference with their possessory interest in the apartment and its contents was, thus, virtually non-existent.""
In the instant case, McArthur was present while the police secured his residence. In addition, Love effectively secured the premises from the inside when he accompanied McArthur to get cigarettes and use the phone.
The Illinois Supreme Court of Illinois denied the state's petition to appeal.
On May 1, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case.