Illinois v. McArthur

Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 · Criminal Procedure

531 U.S. 326 (2001)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureExigent CircumstancesTemporary Seizure of Premisesreasonablenessprobable causedestruction of evidence

Facts

McArthur's wife asked officers to accompany her to the trailer she shared with McArthur while she removed her belongings, and after coming out she told an officer that McArthur had marijuana in the trailer and had slid it under the couch. When McArthur refused consent to search, one officer left with the wife to obtain a search warrant while the other told McArthur he could not enter the trailer unless accompanied by an officer. For about two hours, McArthur was prevented from entering unaccompanied, though he was allowed to reenter a few times with the officer observing him. After the warrant issued, officers searched the trailer and found marijuana and related paraphernalia under the sofa.

Issue

Does the Fourth Amendment permit police officers who have probable cause to believe a home contains contraband to temporarily prevent the resident from entering the home unaccompanied, for about two hours, while they diligently obtain a search warrant, based on a reasonable fear that the resident would destroy the evidence?

Rule

The Fourth Amendment's central requirement is reasonableness, and a warrantless seizure is not per se unreasonable when exigent circumstances are present. A temporary seizure of premises pending a warrant is reasonable when, considered together, police have probable cause to believe the home contains evidence or contraband, have good reason to fear the occupant will destroy the evidence if unrestrained, make reasonable efforts to accommodate privacy by imposing a less restrictive restraint than search or arrest, and limit the restraint to the time reasonably necessary to obtain the warrant with diligence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Lena Ortiz told officers that she had just seen her roommate, Devin Cross, hide illegal pills inside their apartment kitchen cabinet. When officers confronted Devin outside the apartment, he refused consent to search. One officer immediately left to obtain a warrant, while another told Devin he could not go back inside unless accompanied by police; after 75 minutes, the warrant arrived.

Was the temporary restraint on Devin's unaccompanied entry most likely reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?

Explanation. The majority held that a temporary warrantless seizure of a home's premises can be reasonable when four circumstances combine: probable cause to believe the home contains contraband or evidence, good reason to fear the occupant will destroy it, a less restrictive restraint than searching or arresting, and a duration no longer than reasonably necessary for diligent officers to obtain a warrant. These facts satisfy that combination.