JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES No. 329 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 333 U.S. 10; 68 S. Ct.

367; 92 L. Ed. 436; 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2583 December 18, 1947, Argued February 2, 1948, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Petitioner was convicted in a Federal District Court on evidence obtained by a search made without a warrant. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 162 F.2d 562. This Court granted certiorari. 332 U.S. 807. Reversed, p. 17. DISPOSITION: 162 F.2d 562, reversed. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant sought a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed her conviction on four counts of violating federal narcotics laws, including I.R.C. 2553(a) and the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 21 U.S.C.S. 174. OVERVIEW: Police received information from a confidential informer that unknown persons were smoking opium in a hotel. The police went to the hotel with federal narcotics agents, and they all recognized the strong odor of burning opium, which led them to defendant's room. The officers knocked on the door, talked to defendant, and asked her about the opium smell, which defendant denied noticing. The officers arrested her and searched the room, turning up incriminating opium and smoking apparatus. The evidence was admitted at trial over defendant's objection, she was convicted, and her conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. On defendant's petition for certiorari review, the United States Supreme Court reversed the convictions for violating I.R.C. 2553(a) and the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 21 U.S.C.S. 174. The Court held that the warrantless arrest and search violated the Fourth Amendment, even though officers may have had probable cause to obtain a search warrant. The Court found no exigent circumstances. Nor was the inconvenience and slight delay in preparing papers and presenting the evidence to a magistrate a sufficient basis to justify bypassing the warrant requirement. OUTCOME: The Court granted the petition and reversed, holding that the warrantless arrest and search violated the Fourth Amendment even though the officers may have had probable cause to obtain a warrant.

Government Action: Not go into the hall/ Not smell Opium; but Entry into the room and looking around Probable cause: Tip + Coroberated Circumstances But the Court says that we generally need warrants b/c it protects privacy It is important b/c the warrant is then at the suppression hearing, thus freezing the probable cause determination, prevents form ad hoc additions to building probable cause What Johnson says is that if the police are ingaging in a search, The presumption is that there is a warrant requirementprevents from police

getting to wraped up and ad hoc probable cause Exception: Emergency has to be specific artulated facts