## Facts

- Police obtained a warrant to search a basement apartment in Wyandanch, New York, for a handgun based on an informant’s report that “Polo” had shown the gun during a drug purchase.
- During pre-search surveillance, officers saw Chunon L. Bailey and another man leave the area of the apartment, enter a car, and drive away.
- Officers followed the car for roughly a mile, stopped it, patted Bailey down, and seized keys from his pocket.
- Officers handcuffed both men, told them they were being detained (not arrested), and later transported them back to the apartment while the search proceeded.
- The search team found a gun and drugs in the apartment; after Bailey was arrested, officers determined one of the seized keys opened the apartment door.
- Bailey moved to suppress the key and roadside statements as fruits of an unlawful detention; the district court denied the motion, and the Second Circuit affirmed based on Michigan v. Summers.

## Issues

1. Whether the categorical detention authority recognized in Michigan v. Summers permits detaining a recent occupant who has left the premises and is stopped nearly a mile away.
2. Whether Summers detentions are limited to occupants within the “immediate vicinity” of the place being searched.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed (6–3) and remanded.
- Summers authorizes categorical detentions only within the “immediate vicinity” of the premises being searched.
- Detaining Bailey nearly a mile away was beyond any reasonable understanding of “immediate vicinity,” so Summers did not justify the seizure.
- The case was remanded to consider whether the stop could be justified under Terry v. Ohio or another Fourth Amendment doctrine.

## Legal Principles

- The Summers rule permitting detention incident to executing a search warrant is a limited categorical exception and is confined to occupants in the immediate vicinity of the premises.
- The traditional Summers justifications—officer safety, facilitating the search, and preventing flight—diminish substantially when the detention occurs away from the search site.
- Whether a person is within the “immediate vicinity” may depend on factors such as the lawful limits of the premises, line of sight, and ease of reentry.
- Detentions beyond the immediate vicinity must be supported by an independent Fourth Amendment basis (e.g., reasonable suspicion), and cannot rely on Summers alone.

## Conclusion

The Court held that officers executing a search warrant may categorically detain occupants only in the premises’ immediate vicinity; stopping and detaining a recent occupant nearly a mile away falls outside Summers and requires separate Fourth Amendment justification.


Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013)