Abstract
Since the original Bill of Rights was drafted, the diverse warrant requirements necessary for reasonable searches and seizures under the fourth amendment have led to chaos and confusion. A dichotomy has existed between the requirements necessary for the search and seizure of property and those necessary for the search and seizure of persons. Generally, a warrant has been required when the object of the search and seizure was property while no warrant has been necessary for the seizure of an individual. The Supreme Court decision in Payton v. New York has erased much of this distinction, holding that the fourth amendment prohibits a warrantless entry into a suspect's home for a routine felony arrest. However, the decision left unanswered the question of whether the police have the authority, without obtaining either an arrest or a search warrant, to enter the home of a third party in order to arrest a suspect. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has answered that question in Wallace v. King, holding that the police may not search a third party dwelling to effectuate an arrest without a search warrant, even though they have a valid arrest warrant. This comment will trace briefly the history of entries for searches and arrests and then analyze the Payton decision and the Fourth Circuit's extension of that decision in Wallace.
Recommended Citation
Robert B. Lloyd Jr.,
The New Warrant Requirements: Payton v. New York and Wallace v. King,
15
U. Rich. L. Rev.
407
(1981).
Available at:
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol15/iss2/8