CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-FOURTH AMENDMENT-SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT INCIDENT TO ARREST

Authors

G. B. Myers S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Respondent was convicted of selling and of possessing and concealing forged and altered stamps of the United States with intent to defraud. The primary evidence of "possessing and concealing" consisted of numerous forged and altered stamps taken from respondent's one room office by Federal officers immediately after his arrest. The stamps were the product of a one and one-half hour search of the desk, safe and file cabinets in the office. The officers, though without a search warrant for the premises, made the arrest pursuant to a valid warrant. Respondent protested the search, and this protest was renewed by motions to suppress and to strike the evidence pertaining to the stamps. All of the motions were denied. The court of appeals reversed on the ground that since the officers had had time in which to procure a warrant and had failed to do so, the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the evidence inadmissible. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, reversed. The search was reasonable, and therefore not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, in view of the fact that it was incident to a valid arrest, was confined to a small, public area under the immediate control of respondent, and was a search for the subject matter of the crime for which the arrest was made. Justices Frankfurter, Jackson and Black dissented. United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430 (1950).

Recommended Citation

G. B. Myers S.Ed., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-FOURTH AMENDMENT-SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT INCIDENT TO ARREST, 49 Mich. L. Rev. 128 (1950).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol49/iss1/11