{"id":181,"date":"2012-11-27T05:19:43","date_gmt":"2012-11-27T05:19:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.massachusettscriminaldefenselawyerblog.com\/2012\/11\/massachusetts-criminal-defense-3.html"},"modified":"2012-11-27T05:19:43","modified_gmt":"2012-11-27T05:19:43","slug":"massachusetts-criminal-defense-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.delsignoredefense.com\/blog\/massachusetts-criminal-defense-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Bailey decision from the Second Circuit being challenged in the United States Supreme Court raising the issue: when can police detain an individual prior to executing a search warrant"},"content":{"rendered":"

As a Massachusetts criminal lawyer<\/a>, search and seizure issues frequently arise in defending drug crimes. One issue is when can the police detain individual when executing a search warrant. The case of Bailey v. United States<\/u> raises this issue and the defense lawyers are seeking review in the United States Supreme Court. You can read the filings of the Bailey case on the Scotus Blog<\/a>. <\/p>\n

\tIn 1981 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981)<\/a> and held that individuals in a house that is being lawfully searched may be detained, without arrest, for the duration of the search. <\/p>\n

\tThe Bailey<\/u> case involved the following facts. Prior to the execution of a search warrant, police waited outside the premises and observed two men leaving the home, both of which fit the description they had of a suspect. The officers followed the men as they drove off. Upon stopping the men five minutes later, the men were brought back so that they were present during the search. At the motion hearing, the defense lawyer sought to suppress all evidence found on the defendant as well as statements he made as the fruit of the unlawful detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment. <\/p>\n

\tThe Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the search was proper under Summers<\/u> and interpreted the case as not imposing a bright line rule as to whether the defendant leaves the premise, but allows for a detention if it is made as soon as practical. The Second Circuit relied on decisions from the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Circuits which reached similar holdings. The Second Circuit also stated that the intrusion is permissible as a de minimis intrusion. The Second Circuit acknowledged contrary rulings from other circuits but found those decisions misinterpreted the holding of Michigan v. Summers<\/u>. <\/p>\n

In Michigan v. Summers<\/u><\/a>, it was determined that individuals in a location that is being lawfully searched may be detained, without arrest, for the duration of the search. (452 U. S. 692) The detainment in Summers was allowed based on three reasons: <\/p>\n