# Payton v. New York

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 15, 1980 · 445 U.S. 573

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427857

## Case

- **Full name:** Payton v. New York
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 15, 1980
- **Citations:** 445 U.S. 573; 100 S. Ct. 1371; 63 L. Ed. 2d 639; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 13
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Rehnquist
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, Stewart, White
- **Cited by:** 6,515 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by Alexander ex rel. Estate of Quade v. City & County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355 (1994).
- Negative treatments: 3
- Distinguished by: 25
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427857

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, once an arrest warrant has been issued, it is constitutionally reasonable to require the suspect to open the doors of his home to police officers because “for Fourth Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the li…
- holding that a New York statute “authoriz[ing] police officers to enter a private residence without a war- rant and with force, if necessary, to make a routine felony Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 7 Opinion of the Court arrest” was “not consistent with the Fourth Amendment”
- recognizing "long-settled premise that absent exigent circumstances, a warrantless entry to search for weapons or contraband is unconstitutional even when a felony has been committed and there is probable cause to believe that incriminating evidence will be found within"
- holding that “the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine felony arrest.”
- holding warrantless arrest in fugitive’s own home unconstitutional absent probable cause and exigent circumstances, but that an arrest warrant founded on probable cause allows entry into the named person’s home for the limited purpose of effecting the arrest

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
dissenting.
The Court today refers to both Payton and Riddick as involving “routine felony arrests.” I have no reason to dispute the- Court’s characterization of these arrests, but cannot refrain from commenting on the social implications of the result reached by the Court. Payton was arrested for the murder of the manager of a gas station; Riddick was arrested for two armed robberies. If these are indeed “routine felony arrests,” which culminated in convictions after' trial upheld by the state courts on appeal, surely something is amiss in the process of the administration of criminal justice whereby these convictions are now set aside by this Court under the exclusionary rule which we have imposed upon the States under *621 the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
I fully concur in and join the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice White. There is significant historical evidence that we have over the years misread the history of the Fourth Amendment in connection with searches, elevating the warrant requirement over the necessity for probable cause in a way which the Framers of that Amendment did not intend. See T. Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation 38-50 (1969). But one may accept all of that as stare decisis, and still feel deeply troubled by the transposition of these same errors into the area of actual arrests of felons within their houses with respect to whom there is probable cause to suspect guilt of the offense in question.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427857. Public record. Not legal advice.