Someone told the police that Chunon Bailey sold drugs. Worse, he sold drugs and had a gun at his house at 103 Lake Drive in Wyandanch, New York.
That someone was a confidential informant.
The police took that tip and got a search warrant for 103 Lake Drive.
The police were getting ready to go into his house – they had set up outside and were watching it.
They saw Mr. Bailey leave the basement apartment at 103 Lake Drive and get in a car. Two officers followed the car as it drove away. The rest of the search team started searching the house.
A mile away, the cops pulled Mr. Bailey over. They ordered him out of the car and patted him down. They found a ring of keys in his pocket.
They then put him in handcuffs and told him that he was being detained incident to a search warrant at 103 Lake Drive – a mile away.
Inside the house they found a number of things that were unlawful to possess. He was charged in the Eastern District of New York with possessing those things.
Detention Incident to a Search Warrant
Normally, when the police execute a search warrant, they can hold people who are inside the house that’s being searched. Even though holding someone is a “seizure” that generally not only allowed under the Fourth Amendment, there’s an exception when the person was held while the police execute a search warrant.
Mr. Bailey’s case is a little off that mark though.
Sure, if the cops bust in to your house, it makes sense that they’d want to make sure you don’t come after them with a gun or take a magnet to all of your hard drives. And the best way to do that is make sure you’re not near a gun or a magnet – which will require a little bit of detention.
So courts are sensitive to that and allow the police to detain someone – even though any detention is a “seizure” within the scope of the Fourth Amendment as a part of executing a search warrant. The Supreme Court said that’s ok in Michigan v. Summers.
Though, Mr. Bailey’s case, the limits of a detention incident to the execution of a warrant grew way beyond what the rule had allowed in the past – following a guy away from his house, stopping him a mile away, and bringing him back just so he could be “incident” to his place being searched.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that Bailey’s detention was proper and affirmed denial of the suppression motion. It interpreted this Court’s decision in Summers to “authoriz[e] law enforcement to detain the occupant of premises subject to a valid search warrant when that person is seen leaving those premises and the detention is effected as soon as reasonably practicable.” 652 F. 3d 197, 208 (2011).
Happily for Mr. Bailey, we have a Supreme Court.
The Court, in United States v. Bailey, held that Mr. Bailey was not detained as a part of a search that was happening a mile away from a place he was trying to leave.
One opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, said this was because the Fourth Amendment balancing of harms that’s necessary to figure out if a seizure is “reasonable” cuts against this kind of search. Another opinion, written by Justice Scalia, said this was because Summers announced a bright line rule that just doesn’t apply to this case.
But, in the end, Mr. Bailey’s detention was not lawful.