U.S. v. Santana (1976) Facts

U.S. v. Santana (1976)

Facts of the Case: Using marked money, police officers made an undercover heroin buy from a third party. The third party, upon taking money from the officers, entered the defendant 'Ma' Santana's house. The third party emerged with heroin. Officers arrested the third party.

The officers returned to the defendant Ma Santana's house. They identified themselves as police officers. Santana was on her porch. The officers ordered her to empty her pockets and discovered some of the marked money on her person and subsequently arrested her. This search was done without a warrant (the OYEZ Project, United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 1976).

Did the search violate the 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Laws which may agree with or overturn the case: The court has allowed for certain exigent circumstances to allow for searches and seizures without a warrant such as: "(1) the violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged; (2) whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed; (3) a 'clear showing' of probable cause to believe that the suspect committed the crime; (4) 'strong reason' to believe that the suspect is on the premises; (5) a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended; (6) peaceful circumstance of the entry; and (7) entry during the daytime ("Expeditious Authorization of Magistrates' Complaints and Warrants in Federal Escape Cases," Case Authority Criminal Resource Manual 1811, October 1997). In addition, 'hot pursuit' will justify a warrantless entry. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 offers other examples of legal exigencies that may justify warrantless entry to arrest a fugitive, such as a fugitive's likelihood of flight. However, United States v. Adams, 621 F.2d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1980), held "there is no pass/fail checklist for determining exigency and that the ultimate test is whether there is such a compelling necessity for immediate action 'as will not brook the delay of obtaining a warrant.' Because the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement is available in only a few cases, and because there is no certainty that consent will be given every time an entry is sought to arrest a fugitive, it is important that the investigating officers be armed with a warrant ("Expeditious Authorization of Magistrates' Complaints and Warrants in Federal Escape Cases," Case Authority Criminal Resource Manual 1811, October 1997)