# Maryland v. Buie > Supreme Court of the United States · March 5, 1990 · 494 U.S. 325 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431935 ## Case - **Full name:** Maryland v. Buie - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** March 5, 1990 - **Citations:** 494 U.S. 325; 110 S. Ct. 1093; 108 L. Ed. 2d 276; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1176 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy - **Judges:** Blackmun, Brennan, Kennedy, Marshall, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Stevens, White - **Cited by:** 1,889 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in State v. Laboo — not on the Supreme Court's list. - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 3 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431935 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - explaining that “a protective sweep, aimed at protecting the arresting officers, if justified by the circumstances, is nevertheless not a full search of the premises, but may extend only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found” and may last “no long… - holding that officers may search beyond the area immediately adjoining the place of arrest whenever “articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors… - holding that to justify protective sweep of premises in which arrest is made "there must be articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an indiv… - concluding that officers who had an arrest warrant and probable cause to believe that the defendant was in his house could search anywhere in the. house in which he might be found, but that once he was found there was no longer that particular justification for entering any ro… - holding that “[t]he Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a dang… ## Opinion text Justice Kennedy, concurring. The Court adopts the prudent course of explaining the general rule and permitting the state court to apply it in the first instance. The concurrence by Justice Stevens, however, makes the gratuitous observation that the State has a formidable task on remand. My view is quite to the contrary. Based on my present understanding of the record, I should think the officers’ conduct here was in full accord with standard police safety procedure, and that the officers would have been remiss if they had not taken these precautions. This comment is necessary, lest by acquiescence the impression be left that Justice Stevens’ views can be interpreted as authoritative guidance for application of our ruling to the facts of the case. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431935. Public record. Not legal advice.