Key Takeaways

1. Maryland v. Buie (1990) established that police may conduct a protective sweep of a home during an in-home arrest if they have a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger.
2. A protective sweep is a quick, limited search for individuals only in spaces where a person could be hiding, and must not be a general search for evidence. The sweep must be justified by officer safety, not mere suspicion.
3. This decision clarified the balance between the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the safety needs of law enforcement, shaping modern doctrine on in-home arrests and search procedures.

Introduction

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990), is a cornerstone Supreme Court case interpreting the Fourth Amendment’s application to police conduct during in-home arrests. The case addressed the constitutionality of “protective sweeps”—limited searches of premises by law enforcement for individuals who might pose a danger during or after an arrest. The ruling clarified the boundaries of permissible searches incident to arrest, balancing the sanctity of the home and privacy rights against the real dangers faced by officers executing arrest warrants.

This guide provides an in-depth analysis of Maryland v. Buie, its factual background, legal reasoning, and its enduring impact on law enforcement and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Attorneys, law students, and anyone interested in criminal procedure will find here a comprehensive overview, with references to official sources for further research.

Background of the Case

The Incident: Armed Robbery and Arrest

On February 3, 1986, an armed robbery took place at a Godfather's Pizza in Prince George's County, Maryland. Two men, one notably dressed in a red running suit, committed the crime. Police investigation led to arrest warrants for Jerome Edward Buie and his alleged accomplice. Acting on these warrants, police officers arrived at Buie’s home to execute the arrest.

The Protective Sweep and Discovery

Upon entering Buie's residence, officers arrested Buie as he emerged from the basement. Concerned for their safety and the possibility that another suspect might be hiding, an officer conducted a “protective sweep” of the basement. During this sweep, the officer discovered the distinctive red running suit in plain view, which was believed to have been worn during the robbery.

Legal Challenge: Suppression of Evidence

Buie’s defense moved to suppress the evidence of the red running suit, arguing that the sweep and subsequent seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court denied the motion, allowing the evidence to be introduced at trial. Buie was convicted of armed robbery and a weapons charge.

For a summary of the case facts, see the Oyez summary and Justia's case page.

The Fourth Amendment Context

Warrant Requirement and Exceptions

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” generally requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant supported by probable cause. However, there are established exceptions, including searches incident to a lawful arrest and exigent circumstances.

Protective Sweeps: Pre-Buie Doctrine

Prior to Maryland v. Buie, the Supreme Court had recognized certain exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as the “search incident to arrest” doctrine established in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), which allowed officers to search the arrestee and the immediate area for weapons or evidence. However, the scope of permissible searches for individuals hiding in a home during an arrest remained unsettled.

The Supreme Court’s Decision in Maryland v. Buie

Legal Question

The central question before the Supreme Court was: Does the Fourth Amendment permit law enforcement officers to conduct a protective sweep of a home during an arrest, and if so, under what circumstances?

Majority Opinion

The opinion, delivered by Justice Byron White, held that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest if the searching officer has a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.

Key Points from the Majority

• Protective sweeps are justified by officer safety: The Court recognized the real and substantial dangers faced by police during in-home arrests, especially the risk of ambush by a hidden accomplice.
• Reasonable belief standard: The sweep must be based on a reasonable belief, supported by specific and articulable facts—not mere speculation or a routine practice.
• Scope of the sweep: The search must be quick and limited to spaces where a person could be hiding. It is not a general search for evidence.
• Duration: The sweep lasts no longer than necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger.

For the full text of the decision, see Cornell Law School’s summary.

Dissenting Opinions

Justices Thurgood Marshall and William J. Brennan, Jr., dissented, expressing concern that the majority’s standard could be stretched to justify broader searches without sufficient justification, potentially eroding Fourth Amendment protections.

Legal Reasoning and Analysis

Balancing Privacy and Officer Safety

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Buie reflects a careful balancing act:

• Home as sanctuary: The home is afforded the highest level of Fourth Amendment protection, as emphasized in prior cases like Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
• Officer safety: The Court acknowledged that executing an arrest warrant inside a home is fraught with danger, and law enforcement must be able to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety.

Articulable Facts Requirement

A critical component of the Buie standard is that officers must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger. This is a higher standard than mere hunch or generalized fear.

Limitation on Scope

The decision draws a clear distinction between:

• A search incident to arrest (which may include the arrestee and the area within immediate control)
• A protective sweep (which is limited to areas where a person could be hiding and only justified by a reasonable belief of danger)

The sweep cannot be used as a pretext to search for evidence.

Impact and Subsequent Developments

Influence on Law Enforcement Practices

Maryland v. Buie has had a profound impact on police procedures during in-home arrests. Officers are now trained to:

• Identify and articulate specific facts that justify a protective sweep.
• Limit their search to spaces where a person could be hiding.
• Document the basis for their belief in reports and affidavits.

Legal Education and Training

The case is a staple in law school criminal procedure courses and police academy curricula. It is often cited in legal briefs and court opinions analyzing the scope of permissible searches during arrests.

See further analysis at Quimbee and Casebriefs.

Related Supreme Court Cases

Buie fits into a broader context of Fourth Amendment cases:

• Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997): Held that officers may order passengers out of a lawfully stopped vehicle for officer safety (Oyez summary).
• Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013): Upheld DNA swabbing of arrestees as a reasonable booking procedure (Oyez summary).
• Chimel v. California: Established the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine.

Each of these cases reflects the Court’s ongoing effort to balance privacy rights with the realities of law enforcement.

Application in Lower Courts

Since Buie, lower courts have applied its standard in various contexts, generally upholding protective sweeps when officers can demonstrate a reasonable belief of danger based on articulable facts. Courts have also scrutinized sweeps that appear to be pretextual or overly broad.

Practical Implications for Attorneys and Law Enforcement

For Defense Attorneys

• Challenging Protective Sweeps: Defense counsel should scrutinize the justification for any protective sweep and the facts cited by officers. If the sweep was based on mere habit or lacked specific facts indicating danger, a motion to suppress may be appropriate.
• Scope and Duration: Attorneys should assess whether the sweep exceeded permissible areas or lasted longer than necessary.

For Prosecutors

• Supporting Protective Sweeps: Prosecutors must be prepared to demonstrate that officers had a reasonable, articulable basis for the sweep and that it was limited in scope and duration.
• Training Law Enforcement: Prosecutors often work with police agencies to ensure officers are trained to document the basis for any sweep.

For Law Enforcement

• Documentation: Officers should clearly document the specific facts leading to their belief that a protective sweep was necessary.
• Adherence to Scope: Officers must limit sweeps to spaces where a person could be hiding and avoid turning the sweep into a general search.

Maryland v. Buie in the Broader Legal Landscape

Evolving Fourth Amendment Doctrine

Maryland v. Buie is part of the Supreme Court’s evolving interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. As technology and law enforcement tactics change, courts continue to grapple with the balance between privacy and safety.

• Technological advances: New technologies, such as thermal imaging and surveillance tools, raise fresh questions about the scope of permissible searches.
• Changing law enforcement tactics: The increased use of SWAT teams and dynamic entries has heightened the importance of clear rules regarding protective sweeps.

Continuing Relevance

Buie remains highly relevant today, cited in cases involving:

• Searches of homes during arrests
• Protective sweeps in commercial or public buildings
• Searches incident to arrest in vehicles and other contexts

Its clear articulation of the “reasonable belief” and “articulable facts” standard serves as a guidepost for courts and law enforcement alike.

Conclusion

Maryland v. Buie stands as a pivotal decision in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, clarifying when and how law enforcement may conduct protective sweeps during in-home arrests. The case underscores the importance of both officer safety and the constitutional right to privacy in the home. By requiring specific and articulable facts to justify a sweep, the Court set a standard that continues to shape law enforcement practices and judicial decisions across the United States.

For attorneys, understanding Buie’s nuances is essential for effectively litigating search and seizure issues. For law enforcement, adherence to the Buie standard is critical to ensuring that evidence is admissible and that constitutional rights are respected.

For further research, consult Oyez, Justia, and Cornell Law School.

Disclaimer: This guide is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Maryland v. Buie and related Fourth Amendment cases involve complex legal standards with many nuances. For advice on specific cases or fact patterns, consult a qualified attorney or conduct detailed legal research using authoritative sources such as Counsel Stack.