Facts
- Police obtained a warrant to search the Aurora Tap Tavern and the person of its bartender (“Greg”) for heroin and related paraphernalia, based on an informant’s report of tinfoil packets on the bartender and behind the bar and a statement that the bartender would have heroin for sale on a specified date.
- Officers entered the tavern to execute the warrant and announced they would conduct a “cursory search for weapons” of those present.
- An officer patted down all patrons, including Ventura E. Ybarra, a customer not named in the warrant.
- During the first pat-down, the officer felt what he described as a cigarette pack with objects inside in Ybarra’s pocket but did not remove it.
- After patting down other patrons, the officer returned to Ybarra, frisked him again, removed the cigarette pack, and found six tinfoil packets of heroin inside.
- Officers did not claim to know Ybarra, and there was no evidence he acted suspiciously or posed an apparent threat.
- Ybarra was charged and convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance after the trial court denied his motion to suppress; Illinois appellate courts affirmed or declined review.
Issues
- Whether a warrant to search a premises and a named individual, or a state statute authorizing detention and search of persons found on the premises during execution of a warrant, permits searching an unnamed patron absent individualized probable cause.
- Whether the pat-down and subsequent removal of the cigarette pack were valid as a protective frisk under Terry v. Ohio without a particularized reasonable belief that Ybarra was armed and dangerous.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed and held that the search of Ybarra and seizure of the heroin violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- A warrant to search a place and a named person did not authorize searches of other persons present but unnamed without individualized probable cause (or a recognized exception).
- The initial pat-down and the later second frisk and retrieval of the cigarette pack were not justified under Terry because officers lacked reasonable suspicion that Ybarra was armed and dangerous.
- Statutory authorization to search persons found on the premises could not supply a blanket substitute for the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of particularized cause.
Legal Principles
- Probable cause to search must be particularized to the person; presence near suspected criminal activity, without more, does not establish probable cause.
- A premises search warrant does not normally authorize the search of each individual found on the premises; unnamed persons may be searched only with individualized probable cause or a valid exception.
- A Terry frisk requires a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that the person is armed and dangerous; generalized safety concerns during warrant execution are insufficient.
- A protective frisk is limited to discovering weapons; absent a valid basis to believe an item is a weapon and immediate safety concerns, removal of objects from pockets is not justified as a weapons search.
Conclusion
The Court held that officers executing a tavern-and-bartender search warrant could not frisk and search an unnamed patron based solely on his presence, and that a protective pat-down requires individualized reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous; the heroin seized from Ybarra was therefore the product of an unconstitutional search.