Washington v. Chrisman 1982

views updated

Washington v. Chrisman 1982

Petitioner: State of Washington

Respondent: Neil Martin Chrisman

Petitioner's Claim: That a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by searching Chrisman's dormitory room for illegal drugs without a warrant.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner: Ronald R. Carpenter

Chief Lawyer for Respondent: Robert F. Patrick

Justices for the Court: Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens

Justices Dissenting: William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White

Date of Decision: January 13, 1982

Decision: The Supreme Court approved the police officer's search and seizure.

Significance: With Chrisman, the Supreme Court said if police are lawfully in a person's private home, they may seize any criminal evidence they see in plain view.

A person's privacy is protected under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment requires searches and seizures by the government to be reasonable. In most cases, law enforcement officers must get a warrant to search a house or other private place for evidence of a crime. To get a warrant, officers must have probable cause, which means good reason to believe the place to be searched has evidence of a crime. The warrant must specifically describe the evidence the police may look for.

There are exceptions to the warrant requirement. One of the exceptions is called the "plain view" doctrine. Under this doctrine, police who have a warrant to look for specific evidence may seize any other evidence that is in plain view in the place they are searching. In Washington v. Chrisman, the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether a policeman in a dormitory room without a search warrant could seize evidence in plain view.

Party Time

Officer Daugherty worked for the Washington State University police department. On the evening of January 21, 1978, Daugherty saw Carl Overdahl, a student, leave a dormitory carrying a half-gallon bottle of gin. University regulations outlawed alcoholic beverages on university property. State law also made it illegal for anyone under twenty-one to possess alcoholic beverages.

Because Overdahl appeared to be under twenty-one, Daugherty stopped him and asked for identification. Overdahl said he would have to go back to his room to get it. Daugherty arrested Overdahl and said he would have to accompany Overdahl back to the room. Overdahl's roommate, Neil Martin Chrisman, was in the room when Overdahl and Daugherty arrived. Chrisman, who was putting a small box into a medicine cabinet, became nervous.

Daugherty stood in the doorway while Overdahl went to get his identification. While in the doorway, Daugherty noticed seeds and a seashell pipe sitting on a desk. Without asking for permission or getting a search warrant, Daugherty entered the room to examine the seeds, which were marijuana seeds. Daugherty arrested Chrisman and read both gentlemen their rights, including the right to remain silent. He then asked whether they had any other drugs in the room. Chrisman handed Daugherty the small box he had been putting away. The box had three small plastic bags with marijuana and $112 in cash.

Daugherty radioed for a second officer to help him. Both officers said they would have to search the whole room, but that Chrisman and Overdahl could force them to get a search warrant first. After discussing the matter in whispers, Chrisman and Overdahl allowed the officers to search the whole room without a warrant. Daugherty and his fellow officer found more marijuana and some LSD, another illegal drug.

Time to Pay the Piper

The State of Washington charged Chrisman with one count of possessing more than 40 grams of marijuana and one count of possessing LSD, both felonies. Before his trial, Chrisman made a motion to exclude the drug evidence that Daugherty had seized. Chrisman said the entire search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment because Daugherty entered the room to look at the seeds without a search warrant. The trial court denied Chrisman's motion and the jury convicted him on both counts.

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, but the Supreme Court of Washington reversed. It said although Overdahl was under arrest, Daugherty had no reason to enter the dormitory room. There was no indication that Overdahl was getting a weapon, destroying evidence, or trying to escape. Absent such problems, Daugherty was obliged to remain outside the room. Without a warrant, he was not allowed to enter to search for illegal drugs. Faced with having to dismiss the charges against Chrisman, Washington took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Plain View Rule

With a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed again and ruled in favor of Washington. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger applied the plain view doctrine to decide the case. He said Officer Daugherty legally arrested Overdahl for having alcohol. After arresting Overdahl, Daugherty was allowed to stay with him wherever Overdahl went. Police need to stay with arrested people to protect themselves, to protect evidence, and to prevent escape.

DRUG SNIFFING DOGS

T he U.S. Customs Service guards the United States's borders to prevent illegal drugs from getting into the country. In 1970, Customs faced increasing drug traffic with a shrinking staff. That year, a manager suggested that dogs could sniff for illegal drugs. Working with dog experts from the U.S. Air Force, Customs developed a program to train dogs for drug detection.

Customs selects dogs that are natural-born retrievers for drug detection programs. The dogs it uses most often are golden retrievers, Labrador retrievers, and German short-hair retrievers. Customs trains the dogs to detect a drug by linking drug detection with positive feedback. In effect, the dog learns that it will get praise if it finds a certain drug. Trainers must make sure that all items used during training smell like the drug to be found. Otherwise the dog might look for odors that are not associated with an illegal drug.

Because Daugherty was allowed to stay with Overdahl, he was allowed to go into Overdahl's room when Overdahl went to get his identification. Once in the room, the plain view doctrine allowed Daugherty to seize any evidence of a crime that he saw in plain view. After he seized the marijuana seeds, Chrisman voluntarily handed over three bags of marijuana and then gave Daugherty permission to search the entire room. The whole search was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.

Invasion of Privacy

Three justices dissented, which means they disagreed with the Court's decision. Justice Byron R. White wrote a dissenting opinion. Justice White disagreed that Daugherty was allowed to go into Overdahl's private home just because Daugherty had arrested him. White said Daugherty could go in only if necessary to protect himself or prevent escape. There was no indication that Overdahl was getting a weapon, and Daugherty was preventing escape by standing in the doorway.

White said that without a valid reason to enter the room, Daugherty was not allowed to enter just because he saw seeds that looked like marijuana seeds. Otherwise, police officers can snoop around people's homes looking inside for evidence of a crime. That would destroy the privacy the Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect.