We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Letting the Exception Swallow the Rule: The SJC's Missed Opportunity in Commonwealth v. Tatum.
- Authors
BASLER, CHARLES H.
- Abstract
Under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, warrantless entry of a home is presumptively unreasonable. In two landmark cases, Payton v. New York and Steagald v. United States, the Supreme Court sought to enforce the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements for police entry of the home. While providing a solid foundation for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, Payton and Steagald have left a gap for lower courts to fill. One unanswered question is whether the subject of an arrest warrant has the right to insist that police also obtain a search warrant before entering a third party's residence to conduct the arrest. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently addressed this question in Commonwealth v. Tatum and held that an arrest warrant alone is sufficient to protect the suspect's Fourth Amendment and Article XIV rights. The SJC's opinion extends Payton's arrest warrant requirement, rather than Steagald's stricter search warrant requirement, to cover the arrest of subjects both within their own home and in the home of another. This Comment argues that the extension of Payton is inconsistent with existing Fourth Amendment and Article XIV jurisprudence and unnecessarily undermines the privacy and security of innocent third parties. Both the Supreme Court and the SJC have previously recognized an overnight guest's expectation of privacy in the host's home. This expectation of privacy is protected by the Fourth Amendment and Article XIV and provides the guest with standing to challenge a search of the residence. This Comment further argues that the SJC should have extended Steagald and allowed the defendant standing to challenge the validity of the search warrant while in the home of a third party. Because Payton offers no protection for those not named in the arrest warrant, Steagald's search warrant requirement is the only means of ensuring that the rights of both the arrestee and the third party are adequately protected.
- Subjects
MASSACHUSETTS; UNITED States; EXCEPTIONS (Law); SEARCH warrants (Law) -- Lawsuits &; claims; MASSACHUSETTS. Supreme Judicial Court; UNITED States. Constitution. 4th Amendment; PAYTON v. New York (Supreme Court case); POLICE; STEAGALD v. United States (Supreme Court case); ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
New England Law Review, 2014, Vol 49, Issue 1, p145
- ISSN
0028-4823
- Publication type
Article