Washington v. Chrisman - Significance, Call For Action, A Bad Time For A Party, Legal Proceedings, The Plain View Rule

respondent court search united

Petitioner

State of Washington

Respondent

Chrisman

Petitioner's Claim

That evidence seized during a warrantless search of the respondent's dormitory room was legally obtained and admissible in court.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Ronald R. Carpenter

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Robert F. Patrick

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), 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

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

13 January 1982

Decision

Upheld the state of Washington and overturned the verdict of the Washington Court of Appeals, holding that the warrantless search of the respondent's dormitory room did not violate his Fourth Amendment right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and that the evidence obtained in that search was legally admissible.

Related Cases

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 346 (1966).
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 (1968).
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973).

Sources

Marks, Alexandra. "Rolling Back Stiff Drug Sentences." Christian Science Monitor, 8 December 1998.

Washington v. Chrisman - A Bad Time For A Party

On the night of 1 January 1978 Washington State University student Carl Overdahl left his dormitory building carrying a half-gallon bottle of gin in plain view. His timing and his judgement were seriously flawed, given that his university prohibited the possession of alcohol on campus, and that his movements were being observed by Officer Daugherty of the university's police department. Daugherty …

Washington v. Chrisman - Legal Proceedings

Chrisman was charged with possession of more that 40 grams of marijuana and possession of LSD, both felonies under Washington state law. He entered a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence obtained by Daugherty's warrantless search. Chrisman maintained that, since Daugherty had no reasonable suspicion that Overdahl would attempt to escape or destroy evidence while searching for his identificatio…

Washington v. Chrisman - The Plain View Rule

On 13 January 1982 the Supreme Court reversed the verdict of the Washington State Supreme Court, finding by a margin of 6-3 that Daugherty's search was reasonable and the evidence he obtained legally admissible. Justice Burger, writing for the majority, noted two main issues in the case. First, the Court determined that it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to monitor t…

Washington v. Chrisman - Increased Sentencing For Drug Offenders?

With its five- and ten-year minimum sentences, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 is a leading example of the stiff sentencing for drug offenders that became the norm during the 1980s. In 1979, New York became the first state to pass a law authorizing mandatory sentencing for drug offenders. Nearly two decades later, however, New York and other states began to roll back the most stringent of their an…

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.