JAMES
v.
LOUISIANA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The admission of evidence seized during an illegal search, even if the arrest was lawful, violates the Fourth Amendment and requires reversal of the conviction.
Police arrested petitioner, then searched his home two blocks away without a warrant, finding narcotics. The Louisiana Supreme Court initially overtur…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mapp V. Ohio cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The petitioner was convicted by a Louisiana jury of possession of narcotics and was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years. The Supreme Court of Louisiana set aside the conviction on the ground that it was based upon evidence seized without a warrant during an illegal search. 246 La. 1033, 169 So. 2d 89. Upon rehearing, however, that court affirmed the conviction by a divided vote. 246 La. 1053, 169 So. 2d 97. We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment.
Police officers arrested the petitioner near the intersection of Camp Street and Jackson Avenue in the City of New Orleans, after he had alighted from an automobile driven by another man. The officers then drove the petitioner to his home, more than two blocks away. They broke open the door and for several hours conducted an intensive search which finally yielded the narcotics equipment and single morphine tablet that constituted the basis of the petitioner’s subsequent conviction.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana found that the officers had probable cause to arrest the petitioner at the time they apprehended him, and the validity of his arrest is not here in issue. In the circumstances of this case, however, the subsequent search of the petitioner’s home cannot be regarded as incident to his arrest on a street corner more than two blocks away. A search “can be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest.” Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483, 486. See also Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364.
Under the doctrine of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, see also Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, it was constitutional error to admit the fruits of this illegal search into evidence at the petitioner’s trial. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1971)…..” ’ ” Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U. S. 30, 33, quoting from Shipley v. California, 395 U. S. 818, 819, quoting from Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483, 486. (Emphasis in Shipley.) Cf. Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S., at 30-31; James v. Louisiana, 382 U. S. 36. These cases make it clear beyond any question that a lawful pre-Chimel arrest of a suspect outside his house could never by itself justify a warrantless search inside the house. There is nothing in search-incident doctrine (as opposed to the specia…
-
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969)…m of house sustained); United States v. Jackson, 149 F. Supp. 937 (D. C. D. C.), rev’d on other grounds, 102 U. S. App. D. C. 109, 250 F. 2d 772 (suspect arrested half a block from his rented room; search of room upheld). But see James v. Louisiana, 382 U. S. 36 (per curiam). Cf. Mr. Justice Jackson’s dissenting comment in Harris: “The difficulty with this problem for me is that once the search is allowed to go beyond the person arrested and the objects upon him or in his immediate physical control, I see…1 / 2
-
Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1967)…rsuit,” this Court and others have held that its scope does not include permission to search the entire building in which the arrest occurs, or to rummage through locked drawers and closets, or to search at another time or place. James v. Louisiana, 382 U. S. 36 (1965); Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483, 486-487 (1964); Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964); United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452 (1932) ; Go-Bart Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 358 (1931); Agnello v. United States, 2…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961)
- KER et ux. v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1963)
- Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1964)
- Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1964)