United States v. Rabinowitz

United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950), was a United States Supreme Court case which the Court held that warrantless searches immediately following an arrest are constitutional. The decision overturned Trupiano v. United States (1948), which had banned such searches.

United States v. Rabinowitz
Argued January 11, 1950
Decided February 20, 1950
Full case nameUnited States v. Rabinowitz
Citations339 U.S. 56 (more)
70 S. Ct. 430; 94 L. Ed. 2d 653
Holding
A warrantless search of a surrounding area incident to a lawful arrest is constitutional and not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
Case opinions
MajorityMinton, joined by Vinson, Reed, Burton, Clark
DissentBlack
DissentFrankfurter, joined by Jackson
Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Trupiano v. United States (1948)

Background

Albert J. Rabinowitz was arrested in his office on February 16, 1943, for selling forged U.S. postage stamps to an undercover federal officer. Federal agents then conducted a warrantless 90 min search of the office, finding an additional 573 forged stamps. Rabinowitz unsuccessfully moved to exclude this evidence from his subsequent trial, but the motion was denied. He was convicted, but the appellate court reversed the verdict and ruled his rights under the Fourth Amendment had been violated.[1]

Opinion of the Court

The US Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court ruling in a 5-3 decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Sherman Minton wrote that only "unreasonable" searches were banned under the Fourth Amendment; searching the office of a suspected forger at the site of his lawful arrest was held to be reasonable.[1]

gollark: Anyway, what is *with* your use of a capital I there but no .?
gollark: Obviously [HG]Tech™ has memetics technology, but I said "humans".
gollark: Anyway, humans don't really have good memetics knowledge (or if it exists it's in some random field nobody cares about), so your attempts to deploy countermemes are futile.
gollark: I'm not a fan of Among Us, but I respect that for whatever reason people enjoy playing it.
gollark: Where so-called "flat" designers would include rounded corners, and blurred background things, I eschew these in favour of flat colored rectangles, sometimes with borders.

References
  1. Richard J., Hardy (2012). "United States v. Rabinowitz". In Vile, Hudson (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Fourth Amendment. CQ Press.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.