Guy v. Wisconsin

Background

Milwaukee police executed a search warrant for cocaine at a private home, rounded up five people on the premises, handcuffed them, and frisked them for weapons. During a patdown of one person, an officer felt a soft bulge in a pocket, asked about it, and then reached in and took out a baggie containing cocaine. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the person’s conviction, saying the patdown fit the officer-safety rule from Terry and that the seizure fell under a "plain-touch" version of the plain-view idea.

Reasoning

The core question was whether officers executing a narcotics search warrant in a private home may frisk all persons found there. The Wisconsin court said yes, noting that a magistrate had already found probable cause for drug trafficking at the residence and that weapons are often linked to drug dealing. Other state courts have split: some follow Wisconsin’s approach, while others rely on an earlier decision (Ybarra) to reject frisks based only on mere presence. Justice White argued the national conflict is important and would have the high Court take the case to resolve it.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court declined to review, the Wisconsin ruling stands and officers in that State may continue the practice. The split among state courts remains unresolved, so whether people can be frisked during a home drug-warrant search still depends on the State. This is not a national ruling settling the constitutional question at the highest level.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented from the denial of review and said the Court should hear the case to resolve the interstate conflict and practical concerns for police and residents.