Case Study Of Ybarra Vs. Illinois

Jimaris Velazquez
Professor Zia
81-445-1
March 7th, 2016
Ybarra v. Illinois (1979)
Parties: Ventura Ybarra (defendant), State of Illinois
Legal Claim: Ventura Ybarra motioned that the tinfoil packets containing heroin seized by the police officers during the seizure be suppressed because the search and seizure violated his fourth amendment.
Facts:
• The occurrence of the search and seizure of Ybarra occurred during a search warrant at a tavern where Ybarra was a customer
• An informant stated that he observed that the bartender had tinfoil packets on him and that the bartender told him that he would be selling heroin at the bar on a certain date
• With information from a Police informant, Police officers were able to a search warrant for a

• The judge issued a warrant which authorized the search of the tavern and of the bartender in order to obtain evidence of possession of a controlled substance
• When the police officers entered the tavern and announced that they were there to conduct a search and told the customers whose were at the tavern that they were going to conduct “cursory search of weapons”
• One of the officers who searched the defendant ( Ybarra) said he felt a cigarette pack with objects in it but didn’t remove it
• Once the officer finished searching the other patrons at the bar, he returned to Ybarra and searched him for a second time and removed the cigarette pack from Ybarra’s pants pocket, the cigarette pack had six tinfoil packets of heroin inside of it
Procedural History:
• Ybarra was indicted for unlawful possession of a controlled

Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1969))
• The officer who conducted search on Ybarra provided no evidence that he believe he was armed and dangerous , the search of Ybarra was a violation of his constitutional rights and the decision of the lower courts were reversed
• The decision was majority 6 justices to 3, the dissenting opinions were from Justice Rehnquist , Justice Blackmun and Justice Burger they argued that the search of the bar was necessary and the case presented a different set of circumstances to the Terry v Ohio suspicion standard stating that an officer is in more danger executing a warrant than making a standard police stop on the