October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1132
Can police block a home to preserve evidence while seeking a warrant?
Police officers blocked entry to a home to preserve evidence while seeking a warrant. The state argues this action was lawful. The homeowner argues it violated his rights.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The state argues police had probable cause to believe evidence was in the home.
The state argues the officer secured the home to prevent destruction of evidence.
The state argues the partner went to a judge to get a warrant.
The homeowner argues the police action constituted an unlawful seizure of the home.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-25 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 37-39
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether police can temporarily block a home to preserve evidence while obtaining a warrant. The state claims this action was necessary and lawful. The homeowner claims this action violated his constitutional rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-25 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 1, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
The state wants the Court to uphold the police action as lawful.
The homeowner wants the Court to declare the police action unlawful.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-25 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
What each side says
The state argues police may block entry to preserve evidence while seeking a warrant.
The homeowner argues police cannot seize a home to preserve evidence without a warrant.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-25 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the advocate to conclude his argument.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 37-39
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of police power to secure homes. It determines when officers can block entry to preserve evidence. It balances public safety against individual privacy rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-25 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 37-39
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-25 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 29-25 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 29-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.