Michigan v. Little

Background

An informant told police that he had bought heroin from a man named James Johnson at Johnson’s house. Police got a warrant for Johnson and his home. Before entering, an officer bought heroin from Johnson in the backyard. Officers entered, arrested Johnson, and found packets of heroin he tried to discard. An officer saw another person, the respondent Little, in a nearby room and made a quick patdown. The officer felt what seemed to be an envelope or drug paraphernalia, removed it, and found heroin on Little. The trial court suppressed that evidence, and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed that suppression.

Reasoning

The central issue is whether the search of Little’s person during the home search was reasonable. The Michigan Court of Appeals relied on a prior case, Ybarra v. Illinois, to conclude the search violated Little’s rights and ordered the heroin suppressed. The Supreme Court issued a one-line notation that the petition for review was denied, so the appeals-court decision stands. In a written dissent, Chief Justice Burger argued the Ybarra case did not apply because Little was inside a private home where recent drug activity had been found, and officers reasonably suspected a connection between occupants and the drugs.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to review the case, the Michigan appeals court’s ruling excluding the heroin stays in effect for this case. The decision leaves in place a lower-court interpretation limiting searches of people found during home searches unless a higher court later reconsiders.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Burger, joined by two colleagues, argued the search was reasonable and would have granted review to reconsider the appeals court’s reliance on Ybarra.