Michigan v. Summers

Petitioner
State of Michigan
Respondent
George Summers
Petitioner's Claim
That a valid warrant to search a person's home also allows the police officers conducting the search to detain the homeowner while the search is being conducted.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Timothy A. Baughman
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Gerald M. Lorence
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens (writing for the Court), Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
22 June 1981
Decision
That a warrant to search a home carries with it an implicit authority on thepart of the officers executing the warrant to detain the occupants of the home while the search is being conducted.
Significance
The Court's decision made it much easier and safer for police officers to conduct searches of homes. The decision allows officers to detain the occupantsof the home while a search is being conducted so that the occupants cannot interfere with the search, destroy evidence, or threaten the safety of the officers.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." Ordinarily, police may not search a person or his property without having "probable cause" to believe that the search will reveal contraband or evidence of a crime. Likewise, the policemay not seize a person, that is arrest or detain the person, without probablecause to believe that the person is committing a crime. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has recognized certain exceptions to the probable cause requirement. In the watershed 1968 case Terry v. Ohio, the Court held that a police officer may stop a person and search him if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" (which is a much lower standard than probable cause) that the person is armed with a weapon. In such a situation, the officer may "stop and frisk" the person for weapons. Since that decision, the Court has expanded theTerry rule to a number of other situations.
In Michigan v. Summers, the Court expanded the Terry rule to allow police to detain the occupants of a home while the home is being searchedpursuant to a valid search warrant. Detroit police officers, having probablecause to believe that a house contained narcotics, secured a search warrantfor the house. As the police officers arrived at the house to execute the warrant, they encountered George Summers on the front steps. The officers detained Summers while they searched the house. The officers discovered narcotics in the basement of the house and, having ascertained that he owned the house,arrested Summers. Incident to his arrest, the officers searched Summers himself, and discovered 8.5 grams of heroin in his coat pocket.
Summers was charged with possession of the heroin the police discovered in his coat pocket. Summers moved to have the evidence suppressed because his original detention by the police, from which all of the evidence discovered by the police flowed, violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court, Michigan Court of Appeals, and Michigan Supreme Court all agreed with Summers's argumentand dismissed the charges against him. The state appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Detention While Search Is Conducted Is Reasonable
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Michigan courts, concluding that the Fourth Amendment allows the police to detain a person while they search his house. The Court began its analysis by noting that its decision in Terry recognized that, in certain situations, the police do not need probable cause to detain a person for a limited amount of time. The Court also noted that, since its decision in Terry, the Court had expanded the Terry rule to allow limited detentions in a number of circumstances. As theCourt explained, "[t]hese cases recognized that some seizures admittedly covered by the Fourth Amendment constitute such limited intrusions on the personal security of those detained and are justified by such substantial law enforcement interests that they may be made on less than probable cause." Relyingon these cases, the Court concluded that the detention of Summers was limitedand was justified by substantial law enforcement interests.
First, the Court found that the detention was limited because the police hadsecured a search warrant for the home, which was supported by probable cause.The Court reasoned that detaining Summers was less intrusive than the searchof his home, which the police had authority to conduct. The Court also reasoned that police are unlikely to abuse the power to detain someone while the home is being searched by prolonging the detention to gain information becausethe information sought by the police will be obtained through the search itself. Finally, the Court reasoned that the detention was of a limited nature because most citizens will choose to be present to witness the search of theirhomes, unless they intend to flee in order to avoid arrest following the search. Also, the Court concluded that substantial law enforcement interests justified the police officers' detention of Summers while they searched his home. The Court noted that allowing officers to detain the owner while the searchis being conducted allows the officers to prevent attempts to flee the sceneif the search reveals evidence of wrongdoing. Also, detention of the homeowner while the home is searched protects the officers' safety, and allows the police to search the home in a more orderly fashion because the owner may be asked to open locked doors or containers.
Having concluded that Summers could be detained while the search was conducted on less than probable cause, the Court also concluded that the existence ofthe search warrant itself provided sufficient reasonable suspicion, as required under the Terry rule, to allow the officers to detain Summers. Thus, the Court held that "a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted."
An Unwarranted Extension of Terry
Justice Stewart, writing an opinion joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall,dissented from the Court's decision and concluded that the decision was an unwarranted extension of the Terry rule. Justice Stewart noted that theCourt allowed a detention based on less than probable cause in only two situations: where the officers had reason to believe that the person detained wascarrying a weapon and thus posed a threat to the safety of the officers; andbrief stops of vehicles near international borders to question the occupantsabout their citizenship. Justice Stewart reasoned that "[t]he common denominator of [these] cases is the presence of some governmental interest independent of the ordinary interest in investigating crime and apprehending suspects."Justice Stewart found that the interests supporting the officers' detentionof Summers--preventing flight from the scene and the orderly conduct of the search--represent "nothing more than the ordinary police interest in discovering evidence of crime and apprehending wrongdoers."
Justice Stewart also disagreed with the majority's conclusion that the detention of a person while his home is searched is only a limited type of detention. He reasoned that a search of a home can take several hours, which is muchlonger than the brief one or two minute detentions involved in Terry-type "stop and frisk" cases and the border patrol cases. He also noted that the police could prolong the detention, because "[i]f the purpose of the detention is to help the police make the search, the detention can be as long as the police find it necessary to protract the search." Finally, Justice Stewartdisagreed with the majority's conclusion that most citizens will choose to remain in their homes during the search, noting that Summers apparently did notwant to do so. Thus, Justice Stewart concluded that the majority's decisionwas an extension of Terry which was not justified by the reasons underlying that rule or subsequent cases applying the rule.
Impact
The Court's decision in Summers constituted a significant expansion ofthe situations in which police officers may detain a person even though theydo not have probable cause to do so. The Court has continued this expansionafter Summers, in conjunction with recognizing more exceptions to thewarrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the Court's decision in Summers fostered a growing number of situations in which police may conduct searches of property and seizures of persons outside of the requirementsof the Fourth Amendment.
Related Cases

• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
  
• Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972).
  
• Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
  
• Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997).