Johnson v. United States
United States Supreme Court
333 U.S. 10 (1948)
- Written by Matthew Kay, JD
Facts
At 7:30 p.m. Seattle narcotics officer Belland received information from a confidential informer, a narcotics user, that certain persons were smoking opium in a hotel. The informer, after returning to the hotel, said that he could smell burning opium in the hallway. Belland and four narcotics agents, all of whom were experienced in narcotics work, went to the hotel between 8:30 and 9 p.m. All agents recognized the unmistakably strong odor of opium, which led them to Room 1, whose occupant(s) was then unknown to the officers. The officers knocked on the door, and, when asked who was there, responded “Lieutenant Belland.” After a short delay, Johnson (defendant) opened the door. When told that the officer wanted to talk to her, Johnson “stepped back acquiescently and admitted us.” Asked about the opium smell, Johnson denied that there was such a smell. She was then told, “I want you to consider yourself under arrest because we are going to search the room.” She did not consent to the search. In the subsequent search, opium and a still-warm smoking apparatus were found, indicating recent use. The district court refused to suppress this information, and Johnson was convicted of having violated federal narcotics laws. The court of appeals affirmed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jackson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
