5.4: Illinois v. Gates

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 54399

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

PETITIONER RESPONDENT

Illinois Lance Gates, et ux

LOCATION

Residence of Gates

DOCKET NO. DECIDED BY

81-430 Burger Court

LOWER COURT

Supreme Court of Illinois

CITATION

462 US 213 (1983)

ARGUED

Oct 13, 1982

REARGUED

Mar 1. 1983

DECIDED

June 8, 1983

ADVOCATES

Paul P. Biebel, Jr. Reargued the cause for the petitioner

James W . Reilley Reargued the cause for the respondents

Rex E. Lee Argued the case on re-argument for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal

Paul B. Biebel Jr. on behalf of petitioner

Facts of the case

The Bloomingdale, Illinois Police Department received an anonymous tip that Lance and Susan Gates were selling drugs out of their home. After observing the Gates's drug smuggling operation in action, police obtained a warrant and upon searching the suspects' car and home uncovered large quantities of marijuana, other contraband, and weapons.

Question

Did the search of the Gates's home violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

6–3 Decision for Illinois

Majority Opinion by William H. Rehnquist

FOR	AGAINST
Blackmun White Powell Burger O’Conner Rehnquist	Marshall Brennan Stevens

FOR

AGAINST

Blackmun

White

Powell

Burger

O’Conner

Rehnquist

Marshall

Brennan

Stevens

The Court found no constitutional violation and argued that the lower court misapplied the test for probable cause which the Court had announced in Spinelli v. United States (1969). Justice Rehnquist argued that an informant's veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are important in determining probable cause, but that those issues are intertwined and should not be rigidly applied. He argued that the"totality-of-the-circumstances" approach to probable cause was the correct one to glean from Spinelli, and that the law enforcement officials who obtained a warrant abided by it in this case.

Contributors and Attributions

Larry Alvarez (Faculty of Administration of Justice Instructor and Administration of Justice at College of the Canyons)