STEAGALD V. UNITED STATES 451 U.S. 204 (1981) CASE BRIEF

STEAGALD V. UNITED STATES

451 U.S. 204 (1981)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Drug Enforcement Administration agents entered Steagald's (D) home with a valid search warrant for Lyons but without first obtaining a search warrant for D's home. They found cocaine and other incriminating evidence but did not find Lyons. D was indicted on federal drug charges and his pretrial motion to suppress all evidence was denied and D was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme court granted certiorari.

FACTS: Ricky Lyons, was a federal fugitive wanted on drug charges. An informant told the DEA that Lyons would be at a certain phone number for 24 hours. The DEA got the address of the number. Two days later, agents drove to the address to search for Lyons. The officers observed two men standing outside the house to be searched. One of them was D and Gaultney. The officers approached with guns drawn, frisked both men, and, after demanding identification, determined that neither man was Lyons. Several agents proceeded to the house. Gaultney's wife answered the door, and informed the agents that she was alone in the house. She was told to place her hands against the wall and was guarded in that position while one agent searched the house. Lyons was not found, but during the search of the house the agent observed what he believed to be cocaine. An officer was sent to obtain a search warrant and in the meantime conducted a second search of the house, which uncovered additional incriminating evidence. During a third search conducted pursuant to a search warrant, the agents uncovered 43 pounds of cocaine. D was arrested and indicted on federal drug charges. D moved to suppress all evidence uncovered during the various searches on the ground that it was illegally obtained because the agents had failed to secure a search warrant before entering the house. The government contended that the warrant for Ricky Lyons was sufficient to justify the entry and search. The District Court agreed with this view, and denied the suppression motion. D was convicted, and renewed his challenge to the search in his appeal. A divided Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of petitioner's suppression motion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner