Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 2/24/1987

Maryland v. Garrison

Citations

  • 480 U.S. 79
  • 107 S. Ct. 1013
  • 94 L. Ed. 2d 72
  • 1987 U.S. LEXIS 559
  • 55 U.S.L.W. 4190

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1987 United States Supreme Court case

Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the extent of discretion given to police officers acting in good faith. The Court held that where police reasonably believe their warrant was valid during a search, execution of the warrant does not violate respondent's Fourth Amendment rights.

Facts

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryland_v._Garrison&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Facts")
]

The Baltimore Police Department were executing a warrant that said the ‘3rd floor apartment’ intending to search McWebbs apartment, when the police went upstairs they searched the 3rd floor and found drugs and cash. The police, then discovered that the 3rd floor was actually divided into 2 apartments. Up to that point none of the police had realized there were 2 distinct apartments. Garrison brought a 4th Amendment claim because they did not have a warrant to search his apartment, but rather they had a warrant to search McWebbs apartment, and Garrison wanted to use the 4th Amendment to suppress the drug evidence.

Opinion

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryland_v._Garrison&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion")
]

The Court finds that because the warrant allowed for investigation of the 3rd floor, the officers reasonably relied on the warrant to carry out the search. Therefore the evidence is allowed, and Garrison is not allowed to invoke the 4th Amendment protection.

See also

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryland_v._Garrison&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: See also")
]

Further reading

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryland_v._Garrison&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Further reading")
]

  • Childress, D. R. (1988). "Maryland v. Garrison: Extending the Good Faith Exception to Warrantless Searches". Baylor Law Review. 40: 151. ISSN  0005-7274 .
  • Ricciardelli, G. N. (1988). "Stretching the Good Faith Exception beyond Its Constitutional Limits: Maryland v. Garrison". New England Law Review. 23: 853. ISSN  0028-4823 .

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryland_v._Garrison&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: External links")
]

United States Fourth Amendment case law

Scope of the Fourth Amendment

Definition of search

Definition of seizure

Third-party entry

Fourth Amendment standing

Warrant requirement

Exceptions to warrant requirement

Seizures

Remedies

Exclusionary rule

Civil suit

Incorporation against States

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryland_v._Garrison&oldid=1351351848 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

…

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that constitutionality of search must be judged “in light of the information available to [the officers] at the time they acted.”
  • holding that the validity of a search based on a warrant that is too broad depends on whether the officers' failure to realize the overbreadth of the warrant was objectively understandable and reasonable
  • recognizing that the particularity requirement is to ensure that a search conducted by law enforcement be “carefully tailored to its justifications”
  • holding that the validity of a warrant must be assessed based on information officers knew or had a duty to know at the time they obtained the warrant
  • holding that officers had a duty to stop their search once they realized that there were two apartments instead of one on the third floor of the plaintiff’s building
  • recognizing that the particularity requirement “ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Blackmun, Stevens, Rehnquist, White, Powell, O'Connor, Scalia, Black-, Brennan, Marshall

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

706 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Maryland v. Garrison

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.