Washington v. Chrisman 1982

• Author: Daniel Brannen, Richard Hanes, Elizabeth Shaw
• Pages: 466-470

Contenidos

• Party Time.
• Time to Pay the Piper.
• The Plain View Rule.
• Invasion of Privacy.
• Suggestions for further reading.

Page 466

Petitioner: State of Washington

Respondent: Neil Martin Chrisman

Petitioner's Claim: That a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by searching Chrisman's dormitory room for illegal drugs without a warrant.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner: Ronald R. Carpenter

Chief Lawyer for Respondent: Robert F. Patrick

Justices for the Court: Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, 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

Date of Decision: January 13, 1982

Decision: The Supreme Court approved the police officer's search and seizure.

Significance: With Chrisman, the Supreme Court said if police are lawfully in a person's private home, they may seize any criminal evidence they see in plain view.

A person's privacy is protected under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment requires searches and seizures by the government to be reasonable. In most cases, law enforcement officers

Page 467

must get a warrant to search a house or other private place for evidence of a crime. To get a warrant, officers must have probable cause, which means good reason to believe the place to be searched has evidence of a crime. The warrant must specifically describe the evidence the police may look for.

There are exceptions to the warrant requirement. One of the exceptions is called the "plain view" doctrine. Under this doctrine, police who have a warrant to look for specific evidence may seize any other evidence that is in plain view in the place they are searching. In Washington v. Chrisman, the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether a policeman in a dormitory room without a search warrant could seize evidence in plain view.

Party Time

Officer Daugherty worked for the Washington State University police department. On the evening of January 21, 1978, Daugherty saw Carl Overdahl, a student, leave a dormitory carrying a half-gallon bottle of gin. University regulations outlawed alcoholic beverages on university property. State law also made it illegal for anyone under twenty-one to possess alcoholic beverages.

Because Overdahl appeared to be under twenty-one, Daugherty stopped him and asked for identification. Overdahl said he would have to go back to his room to get it. Daugherty...