James v. Louisiana
Opinion
Per Curiam.
The petitioner was convicted by a Louisiana jury of possession of narcotics and was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years. The Supreme Court of Louisiana set aside the conviction on the ground that it was based upon evidence seized without a warrant during an illegal search. 246 La. 1033 , 169 So. 2d 89 . Upon rehearing, however, that court affirmed the conviction by a divided vote. 246 La. 1053 , 169 So. 2d 97 . We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment.
Police officers arrested the petitioner near the intersection of Camp Street and Jackson Avenue in the City of New Orleans, after he had alighted from an automobile driven by another man. The officers then drove the petitioner to his home, more than two blocks away.
*37 They broke open the door and for several hours conducted an intensive search which finally yielded the narcotics equipment and single morphine tablet that constituted the basis of the petitioner’s subsequent conviction.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana found that the officers had probable cause to arrest the petitioner at the time they apprehended him, and the validity of his arrest is not here in issue. In the circumstances of this case, however, the subsequent search of the petitioner’s home cannot be regarded as incident to his arrest on a street corner more than two blocks away. A search “can be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest.”
Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483, 486 . See also Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364 .
Under the doctrine of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 , see also Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23 , it was constitutional error to admit the fruits of this illegal search into evidence at the petitioner’s trial. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that a search of a petitioner’s home after his arrest on the street two blocks away “cannot be regarded as incident to arrest”)
Cited by 75 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court7
- U.S. Courts of Appeals13
- Federal District Courts6
- State Highest Courts31
- State Appellate Courts15
- State Trial Courts1
- Territorial Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.