Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Bachellar Et Al. v. Maryland

• 1969 • 397 U.S. 564 • Burger Court
In the case of Bachellar et al. v. Maryland in 1969, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through a warrantless search was admissible because it fell under the "plain view" doctrine. The case involved police officers who had responded to a noise complaint at an apartment and observed marijuana in plain sight upon their arrival. They subsequently arrested all present individuals without obtaining a search warrant first, leading to charges against them for possession of...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1969
Docket: 729
397 U.S. 564
90 S. Ct. 1312
25 L. Ed. 2d 570
1970 U.S. LEXIS 49
Argued: Mar 02, 1970

Bachellar Et Al. v. Maryland

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Bachellar et al. v. Maryland in 1969, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through a warrantless search was admissible because it fell under the "plain view" doctrine. The case involved police officers who had responded to a noise complaint at an apartment and observed marijuana in plain sight upon their arrival. They subsequently arrested all present individuals without obtaining a search warrant first, leading to charges against them for possession of marijuana. The defendants argued that this constituted an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment since there was no valid reason for entering their home beyond addressing a noise disturbance - thus any evidence found should be excluded from trial proceedings as 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' However, Maryland's highest court upheld their convictions on appeal. Upon reaching the U.S Supreme Court, it affirmed Maryland's ruling by stating that items seen in plain view during lawful access are not subject to exclusionary rule protections if they provide probable cause for arrest or further investigation – even if initially responding to unrelated matters like noise complaints.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Bachellar et al. v. Maryland, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold a search and seizure operation was unconstitutional as it violated Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that there were no exigent circumstances or immediate danger present which could justify such an intrusion without a warrant. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on "consent" obtained under inherently coercive conditions where police officers had already entered and occupied someone’s home unlawfully. In his view, this consent should not be considered voluntary or free from coercion simply because occupants did not resist or object to their presence at that time; rather it is more likely they felt compelled to comply due to fear of potential consequences if they resisted law enforcement officials in their own homes.

Opinion written by Justice WJBrennan
Decided: Apr 20, 1970
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms