Segura v. United States
United States Supreme Court
468 U.S. 796 (1984)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Drug enforcement agents suspected that Andres Segura and Luz Marina Colon (the couple) (defendants) were involved in an illegal drug operation based on an informant's tips and their own surveillance. Before obtaining a search warrant, the agents entered the couple's apartment, arrested the couple, and sent them to jail. While in the apartment, the agents observed incriminating evidence but did not conduct a search. The agents remained in the apartment to prevent the destruction of evidence. Nineteen hours later, the agents obtained a warrant, searched the premises, and found additional incriminating evidence. The agents seized that evidence, as well as the evidence they observed the day before. The United States government (plaintiff) charged the couple with drug offenses. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York found the agents' initial entry illegal and granted the couple's pretrial motion to suppress all seized evidence. The government appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court as to evidence observed before the warrant was obtained but overruled the trial court as to evidence found during the search under warrant. The couple was convicted in trial court, and the court of appeals affirmed the convictions. The couple appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burger, C.J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.