Summary

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Payton v. New York — Opinion of the Court

The Fourth Amendment protects the individual's privacy in a variety of settings. In none is the zone of privacy more clearly defined than when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual's home—a zone that finds its roots in clear and specific constitutional terms: "The right of the people to be secure in their...houses...shall not be violated." That language unequivocally establishes the proposition that " [a] t the very core [of the Fourth Amendment] stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Payton v. New York — Opinion of the Court

He reasoned that the constitutional protection afforded to the individual's interest in the privacy of his own home is equally applicable to a warrantless entry for the purpose of arresting a resident of the house; for it is inherent in such an entry that a search for the suspect may be required before he can be apprehended. [27] Judge Leventhal concluded that an entry to arrest and an entry to search for and to seize property implicate the same interest in preserving the privacy and the sanctity of the home, and justify the same level of constitutional protection.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Payton v. New York — Opinion of the Court

It is true that an arrest warrant requirement may afford less protection than a search warrant requirement, but it will suffice to interpose the magistrate's determination of probable cause between the zealous officer and the citizen. If there is sufficient evidence of a citizen's participation in a felony to persuade a judicial officer that his arrest is justified, it is constitutionally reasonable to require him to open his doors to the officers of the law.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature