Illinois v. McArthur

In Illinois v. McArthur, 148 L. Ed. 2d 838, police officers were called to help keep the peace while a woman removed belongings from the trailer home she shared with her husband, Charles McArthur. After she left the trailer, she told officers that McArthur had marijuana inside and that he had hidden it under the couch. The officers knocked on the door and asked McArthur for consent to search the trailer. He refused.

Rather than enter and search without a warrant, the officers kept McArthur from going back inside the trailer by himself while another officer went to get a search warrant. McArthur was not completely barred from the home. When he needed to enter, officers allowed him to do so, but only while accompanied by an officer. About two hours later, officers obtained a warrant, searched the trailer, and found marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

McArthur moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that police violated the Fourth Amendment by preventing him from freely entering his home before they had a warrant. The case reached the Supreme Court of the United States.

The issue in plain English was whether police may temporarily stop a person from entering his own home unaccompanied while officers are getting a search warrant, when they have probable cause to believe evidence is inside and a reasonable concern that the person will destroy it if allowed inside alone.

This was not a case about whether police could simply search the home without a warrant. The officers did not conduct the search until the warrant arrived. The question was whether the temporary restriction on McArthur’s access to the trailer was itself an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court held that the officers’ conduct was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The Court upheld the temporary restriction because several important limits were present.

First, the officers had probable cause to believe the trailer contained contraband. McArthur’s wife had just been inside and gave officers a specific statement that marijuana was hidden under the couch. Second, officers had a reasonable basis to fear that McArthur would destroy the evidence if he were allowed to go inside alone. He knew police had been told about the drugs, and he had refused consent to search. Third, the officers did not enter and search the home without a warrant. They chose a less intrusive method: they kept McArthur from entering alone while a warrant was obtained. Fourth, the restraint was limited in time and scope. It lasted about two hours, only while officers were actively seeking the warrant, and McArthur was allowed to enter the trailer when accompanied.

The practical rule from Illinois v. McArthur is that officers may, in limited circumstances, temporarily secure a home from the outside and restrict a suspect’s unaccompanied access while diligently obtaining a warrant, if they have probable cause, a real concern that evidence will be destroyed, and they use a reasonable, narrowly tailored approach.

Illinois v. McArthur supports a careful, warrant-focused approach when officers have probable cause but do not yet have a search warrant. If officers reasonably believe evidence is inside a residence and that a person will destroy it if allowed inside alone, they may be able to hold the scene long enough to get a warrant without conducting a warrantless search.

The case does not give officers a blank check to enter homes or freeze residences indefinitely. The Court’s approval depended on the facts: there was specific information from someone with recent access to the home, officers had reason to fear destruction of evidence, they avoided searching until the warrant was issued, they allowed limited accompanied entry, and they obtained the warrant within a relatively short time.

For officers, the safest lesson is to document the facts that create probable cause, the facts showing a risk of destruction, the steps taken to avoid unnecessary intrusion, and the efforts made to get the warrant promptly. The more the police action looks temporary, limited, and tied directly to preserving evidence while a warrant is being pursued, the closer it is to the rule approved in Illinois v. McArthur.