This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.41.160.197 (talk) at 06:01, 7 October 2014 (→Holding). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:01, 7 October 2014 by 108.41.160.197 (talk) (→Holding)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 1964 United States Supreme Court case| Beck v. Ohio | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued October 15, 1964 Decided November 23, 1964 | |
| Full case name | Beck v Ohio |
| Citations | 379 U.S. 89 (more) |
| Holding | |
| No probable cause for petitioner's arrest having been shown, the arrest, and therefore necessarily the search for and seizure of the slips incident thereto, were invalid under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by Douglas, Warren, Brennan, White, Goldberg |
| Dissent | Clark, joined by Black |
| Dissent | Harlan |
| Laws applied | |
| Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment | |
Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the police arrested the defendant without probable cause, and therefore the evidence found on his person after taking him to the police station were found as part of an unconstitutional search.
Facts
An informant conveyed a tip to a policeman in Cleveland, Ohio concerning William Beck driving on city streets. Finding the informant reliable, the officer placed Beck under arrest without a warrant. Although he found nothing after searching Beck's car, he found several gambling-related slips on Beck's person, which was a violation of Ohio law.
Convicted at trial, Beck appealed, but both the Ohio Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court (the highest in the state) affirmed the initial ruling. They reasoned that the searches were part of a lawful arrest, despite being conducted without a warrant.
Question
Did the policeman's arrest and subsequent search of William Beck person violate Beck's rights under the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Ohio Supreme Court ruling, saying, "The record in this case does not contain a single objective fact to support a belief by the officers that the petitioner was engaged in criminal activity at the time they arrested him." Justice Potter Stewart explained, "We may assume that the officers acted in good faith. But good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough. If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, only in the discretion of the police."
References
- http://supreme.justia.com/us/379/89/case.html Retrieved December 22, 2009
External links
- Text of Beck v. Ohio is available from: Findlaw
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |