531 U.S. 326 (2001)
On April 2, 1997, Tera McArthur asked two police officers, Assistant Chief John Love and Officer Richard Skidis, to accompany her to the trailer where she lived with her husband Charles McArthur so that they could keep the peace while she removed her belongings.1 The officers arrived with Tera at the trailer at about 3:15 p.m. Tera went inside while the officers remained outside.2
After collecting her possessions, Tera emerged and told Chief Love that Charles had marijuana in the trailer and that she had seen him slide some dope underneath the couch.3 Love knocked on the door, informed Charles of Tera's statements, and requested permission to search the trailer, which Charles denied.4 Love then sent Officer Skidis with Tera to obtain a search warrant.5
Love informed Charles, who was on the porch, that he could not reenter the trailer unless accompanied by a police officer.6 Charles reentered the trailer two or three times to get cigarettes and make phone calls, and each time Love stood just inside the door to observe him.7 Officer Skidis obtained the warrant by about 5 p.m. and returned with other officers to search the trailer.8
The officers found a marijuana pipe, a one-hitter box, and a small amount of marijuana under the sofa, leading to Charles McArthur's arrest.9 Illinois charged McArthur with unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia and marijuana, both misdemeanors under Illinois law.10 McArthur moved to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an unlawful seizure.11
The trial court granted the suppression motion.12 The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the decision.13 The Illinois Supreme Court denied the State's petition for leave to appeal.14
Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers who have probable cause to believe that a home contains contraband from preventing the resident from reentering the home unaccompanied for approximately two hours while they obtain a search warrant?15
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures.16 Temporary seizures of a home to prevent evidence destruction are reasonable when supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances, the restraint is limited in time and scope, police act diligently to obtain a warrant, and privacy and law enforcement interests balance in favor of the seizure rather than a per se warrant requirement.17
No. After emerging she told Chief Love that Charles had marijuana hidden under the couch, giving the officers probable cause based on her firsthand account.18 The officers reasonably concluded McArthur would destroy the drugs if allowed to reenter unaccompanied after seeing his wife speak with police.19 They imposed only the limited restraint of requiring accompaniment for reentry, left the home intact, and obtained the warrant in roughly two hours through diligent effort.20
These facts satisfy probable cause, exigent circumstances, limited scope, and brief duration, rendering the seizure reasonable.21
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the temporary seizure at issue because the officers' actions were reasonable under the circumstances.22
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Souter concurred in the judgment but emphasized that McArthur's decision to step outside the trailer abated the immediate risk of evidence destruction that would have justified prompt warrantless entry.23 The exigent circumstances exception supported entry only while the risk persisted inside the home.24 Once McArthur left, the police could not enter but could reasonably prevent reentry to preserve the opportunity for a warrant.25
Souter stressed that impoundment aligns with the law's strong preference for warrants by allowing police a fair chance to present probable cause to a magistrate rather than compelling an immediate search upon the suspect's return.26
Justice Stevens dissented, contending that the minor character of the class C misdemeanor for possessing less than 2.5 grams of marijuana renders the case unsuitable for expanding police authority to restrict possessory interests in the home.27 He would have affirmed the Illinois courts, which placed greater weight on the sanctity of the home than on prosecuting this petty offense.28 Following Welsh v. Wisconsin, Stevens reasoned that some offenses are so minor that intrusions permissible for graver crimes become unreasonable, and the balance of privacy and law enforcement interests favored McArthur here.29