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) 379 U.S. 89 (1964) |
|||||
| 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.
Contents |
A tip was given by an informant to a Cleveland, Ohio police officer in reference to William Beck driving on city streets. Without a warrant, the officer placed Beck under arrest and searched his car. Nothing was found in the car. Beck was transported to the car where a search of his person was conducted. During the search of his person, several gambling-related slips were found, which was a violation of Ohio Law.
The conviction was upheld by both the Ohio Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court, that even though the searches were done without a warrant the searches were part of a lawful arrest.
Did the police officer arrest and search of William Beck violate Beck's rights under the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment?
The court overturned the Ohio Supreme Court ruling. "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 further noted that, "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." [1]