Criminal Law: Analysis of Payton v. New York and Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Cases

This article provides an analysis of two cases, Payton v. New York and Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, related to warrantless searches in criminal law. The article discusses the facts, issues, reasoning, and significance of both cases and highlights the differences between them. The Fourth Amendment of the American Constitution has been interpreted to analyse the validity of the warrantless searches in both cases.

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law
Veronica Harmon
Criminal Procedure
CJ 2241
Mr. Sowell

1CRIMINAL LAW
Case 1
Name of the case
Payton v. New York1
Citation
445 U.S. 573 (1980)
Facts
Theodore Payton has been a suspect in the murder of an employee working for a gas
station in the New York City. This case has been initiated when the New York City Police
has entered in the house of Payton forcibly as they were informed about his presence there.
Subsequently, it was conceived that Payton was not at home at that time. However, the Police
has discovered material evidence from that forcible entry which has established his
connection with the murder in question. The action of the police in this case has been effected
in pursuance of the Laws prevailing in New York, which has authorised the police to enter a
residence for the purpose of making a felony arrest in the absence of any warrant being issued
to that effect. Payton has been convicted as a result and preferred an appeal against that
decision of conviction. However, the court has authorized the forcible entry of police in the
house of Payton as the same has been allowed by the laws prevailing in New York. However,
Supreme Court has held the forcible entry to be unreasonable.
Issue
Whether the New York Police are justified to enter the house of the suspect in the absence
of any warrant and when there are no exigent circumstances to support that.
1 445 U.S. 573 (1980)

2CRIMINAL LAW
Reasoning
The Supreme Court has rendered the law authorising the police to make a forcible entry to
a private residence to be unreasonable in the absence of a warrant. Such an authorization in
the absence of a warrant will be in contravention of the Fourth Amendment2. The Fourth
Amendment of the Constitution requires the seizures, searches and to that effect forcible
entry to a private residence without a warrant to be avoided except in the case of exigent
circumstances.
Significance
This verdict of the Supreme Court has restrained the police from making a forcible entry
to a private residence in the absence of a warrant to that effect. However, an exception in the
case of exigent circumstances has been allowed.
Case 2
Name of the case
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte3
Citation
412 U.S. 218 (1973)
Facts
In Sunnyvale of California, a police officer, namely James Rand has performed a search of
an automobile after availing the permission of the search from the owner of the automobile,
namely, Joe Alcala. The said search has revealed three checks belonging to a car wash, which
has been stolen. It has been found that the checks belonged to Robert Bustamonte, who was
one of the passengers of the aforementioned automobile. In his trial, Robert Bustamonte has
pleaded to suppress the charges imposed upon him. In making the claim, he has submitted
2 Donohue, Laura K. "The Original Fourth Amendment." U. Chi. L. Rev. 83 (2016): 1181.
3 412 U.S. 218 (1973)

3CRIMINAL LAW
that the search, which has revealed the checks has been carried out in the absence of any
warrant and hence it cannot be admitted. However, the Supreme Court has delivered a
judgement based on the fact that the search has been effected with the consent of the owner
of the automobile.
Issue
Whether the evidence collected by James Rand will be admissible against Robert
Bustamonte and whether the search was violative of the Fourth Amendment of the
Constitution.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court rendered the search that has been carried out by James Rand to be in
compliance to the constitution4. The checks were held to be admissible by the Supreme Court
as the search has been carried out with the full consent of the owner of the car. The challenge
that has been posed by Robert Bustamonte against the constitutionality of the search effected
by James Rand was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution makes the search and seizure with respect to private property without a warrant
to be unreasonable and restricts the same. Again, in this case, the search has been effected
with the consent of the owner of the automobile, hence the same cannot be treated to be
unreasonable.
Significance
This case has a great significance in the cases, which involves the warrantless searches
with the consent of the owner of the property subjected to search. This case has rendered the
consent searches to be in conformity with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
4 The United States Constitution, 1789

4CRIMINAL LAW
However, it requires the person against whom such a search needs to be carried out to have
the knowledge of his right to withhold the consent5.
Summary of Differences
In both the cases of Payton v. New York and Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, the
constitutionality of warrantless searches has been brought under question. In this context, the
Fourth Amendment to the American Constitution has been interpreted to analyse the validity
of the warrantless searches.
In the case of Payton v. New York, the police has made a forcible entry in a private
property to make a search, which was a warrantless search. However, the case of Schneckloth
v. Bustamonte also involves a warrantless search, which has been carried out by the police
with the consent of the owner of the private property. In the former case, the search has been
carried out without a warrant and also without the permission of the owner of the property. In
the latter case, although the search was warrantless but the same has been carried out with the
permission of the owner whose property has been searched.
In the case of Payton v. New York, as the search has been effected with a forcible entry
and in the absence of any warrant, the Supreme Court has held such a search to be violative
of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. However, in the case of Schneckloth v.
Bustamonte, the Supreme Court has held the warrantless search to be in compliance with the
constitution as the same has been effected with the consent of the owner whose property has
been subjected to search.
Both of the cases deals with warrantless searches, but the first one has been effected
without the consent of the owner of the property and the second one has been effected with a
prior consent of the owner of the property in question.
5 Konvitz, Milton. Fundamental Rights: history of a constitutional doctrine. Routledge, 2017.

5CRIMINAL LAW

6CRIMINAL LAW
Reference
Donohue, Laura K. "The Original Fourth Amendment." U. Chi. L. Rev. 83 (2016): 1181.
Konvitz, Milton. Fundamental Rights: history of a constitutional doctrine. Routledge, 2017.
Payton v. New York 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 412 U.S. 218 (1973)
The United States Constitution, 1789