Case Study Of Ybarra Vs. Illinois

644 Words3 Pages

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 …show more content…

• 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 …show more content…

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

Open Document