http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGIXV2WEQ7C.html
Can Police Block a Person From Entering His Own Home?
By LAURIE ASSEO Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Taking on a police search and seizure case, the Supreme Court said Monday it will decide whether officers can keep people from going into their homes alone while police get a search warrant.
Illinois prosecutors say police needed to keep a man from destroying marijuana, but the man says officers violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
The justices will hear arguments in the case this fall, and a decision is expected next year.
"Police should not be able to detain you and keep you from re-entering your own home," attorney Deanne F. Jones, representing Charles McArthur of Sullivan, Ill., said in a telephone interview Monday.
However, assistant Illinois attorney general Colleen Griffin said, "There was probable cause to believe he had this contraband in his house." Therefore, she added, police were justified in saying that no one could re-enter the home for the period of time necessary to secure the warrant.
The dispute began in April 1997 when two Sullivan police officers accompanied Tera McArthur to retrieve her belongings from a trailer home she shared with McArthur, her husband. When she came outside, she told police he had marijuana under the couch.
An officer knocked on the door, and McArthur came outside, denied he had drugs and told police they could not search without a warrant. During the two hours it took to get a warrant, police did not let McArthur re-enter his home except for a few times when an officer accompanied him and stood inside the door.
When an officer returned with a warrant, police said they conducted a search and found marijuana and drug paraphernalia. McArthur was charged with possessing less than 2.5 grams of marijuana and possessing drug paraphernalia.
McArthur conceded that if he had been allowed to go inside his home alone he would have destroyed the marijuana. But he asked a state trial judge to bar use of the marijuana as evidence, contending the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial judge ruled the drugs could not be used as evidence, and an Illinois appeals court agreed. The drug charge was a misdemeanor.
"At the heart of this issue is the preservation of evidence," the appeals court said.
However, the court said the officers essentially evicted McArthur from his home, adding that no special circumstances justified the officer's entering the trailer with McArthur.
The appellate judges said McArthur's case was not similar to others in which police were allowed to keep someone outside while seeking a warrant. In those cases, the person was under arrest or subject to arrest on arrival, or the person consented to stay outside, the court said.
Prosecutors' appeal to the Supreme Court said the government had an interest in keeping McArthur from destroying evidence, and that the appeals court ruling would make it virtually impossible for police to secure homes in such cases.
"A seizure is not necessarily unconstitutional for the period of time necessary to secure the warrant," Griffin said Monday.
McArthur's lawyers said the officers unlawfully seized his home and conducted an illegal search.
"The police not only prohibited Mr. McArthur from re-entering his home ... but also admittedly entered Mr. McArthur's residence despite his telling them they could not come into his home without a warrant," his lawyers said in court papers.
© Copyright 2000 Associated Press.
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
Can Police Block a Person From Entering His Own Home?
By LAURIE ASSEO Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Taking on a police search and seizure case, the Supreme Court said Monday it will decide whether officers can keep people from going into their homes alone while police get a search warrant.
Illinois prosecutors say police needed to keep a man from destroying marijuana, but the man says officers violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
The justices will hear arguments in the case this fall, and a decision is expected next year.
"Police should not be able to detain you and keep you from re-entering your own home," attorney Deanne F. Jones, representing Charles McArthur of Sullivan, Ill., said in a telephone interview Monday.
However, assistant Illinois attorney general Colleen Griffin said, "There was probable cause to believe he had this contraband in his house." Therefore, she added, police were justified in saying that no one could re-enter the home for the period of time necessary to secure the warrant.
The dispute began in April 1997 when two Sullivan police officers accompanied Tera McArthur to retrieve her belongings from a trailer home she shared with McArthur, her husband. When she came outside, she told police he had marijuana under the couch.
An officer knocked on the door, and McArthur came outside, denied he had drugs and told police they could not search without a warrant. During the two hours it took to get a warrant, police did not let McArthur re-enter his home except for a few times when an officer accompanied him and stood inside the door.
When an officer returned with a warrant, police said they conducted a search and found marijuana and drug paraphernalia. McArthur was charged with possessing less than 2.5 grams of marijuana and possessing drug paraphernalia.
McArthur conceded that if he had been allowed to go inside his home alone he would have destroyed the marijuana. But he asked a state trial judge to bar use of the marijuana as evidence, contending the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial judge ruled the drugs could not be used as evidence, and an Illinois appeals court agreed. The drug charge was a misdemeanor.
"At the heart of this issue is the preservation of evidence," the appeals court said.
However, the court said the officers essentially evicted McArthur from his home, adding that no special circumstances justified the officer's entering the trailer with McArthur.
The appellate judges said McArthur's case was not similar to others in which police were allowed to keep someone outside while seeking a warrant. In those cases, the person was under arrest or subject to arrest on arrival, or the person consented to stay outside, the court said.
Prosecutors' appeal to the Supreme Court said the government had an interest in keeping McArthur from destroying evidence, and that the appeals court ruling would make it virtually impossible for police to secure homes in such cases.
"A seizure is not necessarily unconstitutional for the period of time necessary to secure the warrant," Griffin said Monday.
McArthur's lawyers said the officers unlawfully seized his home and conducted an illegal search.
"The police not only prohibited Mr. McArthur from re-entering his home ... but also admittedly entered Mr. McArthur's residence despite his telling them they could not come into his home without a warrant," his lawyers said in court papers.
© Copyright 2000 Associated Press.
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.