Connection lost
Server error
Payton v. New York Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Police entered suspects’ homes without warrants to make routine felony arrests. The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment draws a “firm line at the entrance to the house,” requiring an arrest warrant for police to enter a home for such a purpose.
Legal Significance: This landmark case established that, absent exigent circumstances, the Fourth Amendment requires an arrest warrant for police to enter a suspect’s home to make a routine felony arrest, extending significant constitutional protection to the sanctity of the home against government intrusion.
Payton v. New York Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
This case consolidated two appeals challenging New York statutes that authorized warrantless home arrests. In the first case, police, with probable cause to believe Theodore Payton had committed murder, went to his apartment without a warrant. When no one answered, they used a crowbar to forcibly enter. Payton was absent, but police seized a shell casing in plain view, which was later used as evidence. In the second case, police had probable cause to arrest Obie Riddick for armed robbery. They went to his home without a warrant, and when his young son opened the door, police entered and arrested Riddick, who was visible in his bed. A subsequent search of a nearby dresser revealed narcotics. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, holding that the state statutes authorizing the warrantless, nonconsensual entries to make felony arrests were constitutional. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve this question.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibit police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home to make a routine felony arrest?
Yes. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut al
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Fourth Amendment, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibit police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home to make a routine felony arrest?
Conclusion
Payton established a foundational Fourth Amendment principle protecting the sanctity of the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad
Legal Rule
Absent exigent circumstances, the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from making a warrantless Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excep
Legal Analysis
Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens emphasized that "the physical entry of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit,
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Fourth Amendment prohibits police from making a warrantless, nonconsensual entry