United States v. Santana - Significance, A Drug Bust, Charges And Preliminary Trials, Search And Seizure, Impact

court arrest petitioner respondents

Petitioner

United States

Respondents

Mom Santana, et al.

Petitioner's Claim

That Santana's arrest for possession of heroin with intent to distribute was legally admissible, despite the fact that the arrest occurred within her home and without benefit of a search or arrest warrant.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Frank H. Easterbrook

Chief Lawyer for Respondents

Dennis H. Eisman

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

24 June 1976

Decision

Reversed the finding of the court of appeals, ruling that the respondents' arrest was legal given the fact that Santana was first confronted in the vestibule of her home, and the actual arrest occurred during "hot pursuit."

Related Cases

Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967).
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976).

United States v. Santana - A Drug Bust

In August 1974 undercover police officer Michael Gilletti of the Philadelphia narcotics squad set up a purchase of heroin from a woman named Patricia McCafferty. Officer Gilletti had purchased illegal drugs from McCafferty in the past, and when he approached her to set a time for his buy, McCafferty told him to meet her at a set location, and to bring $115 with him. After obtaining $110 in marked …

United States v. Santana - Charges And Preliminary Trials

Santana and Alejandro were charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and McCafferty was charged with distribution of heroin, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. McCafferty pled guilty to the charges against her, but Santana and Alejandro moved that the heroin and money seized from them in the arrest be suppressed since it had been obtained withou…

United States v. Santana - Search And Seizure

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure of individuals and their property. The Amendment defines reasonable searches and seizures as those which are conducted under legal warrant issued due to the existence of probable cause that wrongdoing will be uncovered by them. Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has wavered in its interpretation of the Fourth…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.