Bailey v. United States: Drawing an Exception in the Context of Off-Premises Detentions Incident to Search Warrants

Christopher Chaulk

In Bailey v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether the detention of a recent occupant of a premises subject to a lawful search warrant one mile away from the premises violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures, or was a permissible extension of Michigan v. Summers. The Court concluded that the off-premises detention did not serve the law enforcement interests underpinning the Court’s decision in Summers. The Court then articulated a spatial limit to Summers: officers cannot detain occupants beyond “the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched.” The majority correctly crafted this line to ensure that police had adequate power to detain insofar as the detention served the underlying interest in the “safe and efficient execution of the search warrant.” Moreover, the majority communicated a flexible standard for lower courts to apply and adapt to the particular circumstances of a given case. Justice Scalia, in concurrence, assisted the Court by clarifying the proper application and scope of a Summers detention in light of the conflicting interpretations of Summers among the federal courts of appeals. By refusing to uphold Bailey’s detention as reasonable, the Court confirmed that when it considers exceptions to traditional Fourth Amendment rules, the Court will maintain the scope of the exception narrowly and rigorously analyze any purported law enforcement interests involved to ensure the exception rests on appropriate justifications