Document: 453 U.S. 454 101 S.Ct. 2860 69 L.Ed.2d 768 State of NEW YORK, Petitioner,v.Roger BELTON. No. 80-328. Argued April 27, 1981. Decided July 1, Rehearing Denied Sept. 23, See 950, 102 26. Syllabus An automobile in which respondent was one the occupants stopped by a New York policeman for traveling at an excessive rate speed. In process discovering that none owned car or related to owner, smelled burnt marihuana and saw on floor envelope suspected containing marihuana. He then directed get out arrested them unlawful possession After searching each occupants, he searched passenger compartment car, found jacket belonging respondent, unzipped pockets, discovered cocaine. Subsequently, indicted criminal controlled substance. trial court had denied his motion suppress cocaine seized from pocket, pleaded guilty lesser included offense, while preserving claim been violation Fourth Fourteenth Amendments. The Appellate Division Supreme Court upheld constitutionality search seizure, but Appeals reversed. Held: respondent's incident lawful custodial arrest, hence did not violate jacket, being located inside "within arrestee's immediate control" within meaning Chimel v. California, 395 752, 89 2034, 23 685, wherein it held arrest creates situation justifying contemporaneous warrantless arrestee immediately surrounding area. Not only may police such circumstances, they also examine contents any containers compartment. And container be whether is open closed, since justification has no privacy interest justifies infringement have. Pp. 457-463. 50 N.Y.2d 447, 429 N.Y.S.2d 574, 407 N.E.2d 420, James R. Harvey, Canandaigua, N. Y., petitioner. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D. C., U. S., as amicus curiae, special leave Court. Paul J. Cambria, Jr., Buffalo, respondent. Justice STEWART, delivered opinion 1 When occupant subjected does constitutionally permissible scope include riding? That question issue present case. 2 * On 9, 1978, Trooper Douglas Nicot, driving unmarked Thruway, passed another Nicot gave chase, overtook speeding vehicle, ordered its driver pull over side road stop. There were four men whom Roger Belton, this asked see driver's license registration, vehicle owner. Meanwhile, seen marked "Supergold" associated with therefore placed under patted down "split up into separate areas Thruway time so would physical touching area other." picked contained giving arrestees warnings required Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694, state them. car. back seat black leather Belton. pockets Placing automobile, drove nearby station. 3 Belton subsequently moved trooper pocket suppressed. motion. preserved Lefkowitz Newsome, 420 283, 95 886, 43 196. Appellant reasoning "[o]nce defendant validly marihuana, officer justified other contraband." 68 A.D.2d 198, 201, 416 922, 925. 4 reversed, holding "[a] zippered unaccessible where there longer danger confederate might gain access article." 449, 575, 421. Two judges dissented. They pointed "search conducted lone peace who arresting unknown individuals apparently uncertain quantity suspects standing quick check confirm suspicions before attempting transport headquarters . ." Id., 454, N.Y.S.2d, 578, N.E.2d, 424. We granted certiorari consider circumstances these. 449 1109, 917, 66 838. II 5 It first principle Amendment jurisprudence conduct unless convince neutral magistrate probable cause do so. This recognized, however, "the exigencies situation" sometimes make exemption warrant requirement "imperative." McDonald United States, 335 451, 456, 191, 193, 93 L.Ed. 153. Specifically, without person Such searches have long considered valid because need "to remove weapons [the arrestee] seek use order resist effect escape" prevent concealment destruction evidence. 763, S.Ct., 2040. 6 Court's emphasized that, said Terry Ohio, 392 19, 88 1868, 1878, 20 889, [a] must 'strictly tied by' rendered initiation permissible." Quoted supra, 762, 2039. Thus "ample justification" [an weapon destructible evidence," "no comparable routinely room than occurs—or, matter, through all desk drawers closed concealed itself." U.S., 7 Although limits stated clearly enough, courts difficult apply specific cases. Yet, commentator out, protection Amendments "can realized if are acting set rules which, most instances, makes possible reach correct determination beforehand invasion law enforcement." LaFave, "Case-By-Case Adjudication" Versus "Standardized Procedures": Robinson Dilemma, 1974 S.Ct.Rev. 127, 142. 8 "Fourth doctrine, given force exclusionary rule, primarily intended regulate their day-to-day activities thus ought expressed terms readily applicable context enforcement necessarily engaged. A highly sophisticated rules, qualified sorts ifs, ands, buts requiring drawing subtle nuances hairline distinctions, sort heady stuff upon facile minds lawyers eagerly feed, 'literally impossible application field.' " 141. 9 short, single, familiar standard essential guide officers, limited expertise reflect balance social individual interests involved confront." Dunaway York, 442 200, 213-214, 99 2248, 2256-57, 60 824. 10 So States Robinson, 414 218, 94 467, 38 427, hewed straightforward easily applied, predictably enforced: "[I]n case full exception Amendment, 'reasonable' Amendment." 235, 477. holding, rejected suggestion "there litigated reasons supporting authority arrest." Ibid. 11 But rule emerged cases respecting here—the proper interior occupants. difficulty reflected conflicting views dealt problem case, confirmed look even small sample drawn narrow class decided whether, course after it. hand, decisions Sanders, 631 F.2d 1309 (CA8 1980); Dixon, 558 919 (CA9 1977); Frick, 490 666 (CA5 1973), arrests. Benson, 1336 1980), Rigales, 630 364 searches, factual invalid.1 12 cannot know how will settled recurring situation, constitutional protection, nor can authority. While established stray beyond control arrestee, workable definition arrestee" when arguably includes recent occupant. Our reading suggests generalization articles relatively compass fact generally, inevitably, grab evidentiary ite[m]." Chimel, establish category requires, we read § light generalization. Accordingly, hold made automobile,2 may, automobile.3 13 follows conclusion compartment, reach.4 supra; Draper 358 307, 79 329, 327. course, container, Thus, could house simply him home, noted pose police. 14 true, these neither evidence suspect arrested. However, argument container—there "crumpled cigarette package"—located during searched: "The based disarm discover evidence, depend what later decide probability particular suspect. reasonable intrusion Amendment; lawful, requires additional justification." 476. 15 relied Chadwick, 433 97 2476, 53 538, Arkansas 753, 2586, 61 235 concluding seizure invalid.5 those arrest. As Chadwick case: "Here more hour federal agents gained exclusive footlocker respondents securely custody; viewed incidental exigency." 15, 2485. Sanders explicitly "consider luggage possessor. See, e. g., 427 (1973). argued suitcase appears bag 'immediate control' search." 764, n. 11, 2593, 11. (The trunk taxicab. 4, supra.) III questioned subject charge possessing followed just concluded case.6 therefore, judgment 17 ordered. 18 REHNQUIST, concurring. 19 Because apparent majority unwilling overrule Mapp 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961), find necessary "automobile exception" disposition ante, 462-463, 6, Robbins 437, 2841, 2851, 744 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting), I join STEVENS, concurring judgment. 21 For my dissenting 444, 2855, agree BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST two should same way, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, POWELL, 22 MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 685 (1969), carefully analyzed years precedent governing today turns product analysis, formulating arbitrary "bright-line" "recent" automobiles fails Chimel's underlying policy justifications. claims intact, 460, 3, fear unwarranted abandonment principles decision signal wholesale retreat our developed search-incident-to-arrest analysis dissent. 24 fundamental exceptions narrowly construed. 759-760, 2590, (1979); Mincey 437 385, 393-394, 98 2408, 2414, 57 290 (1978); Coolidge Hampshire, 403 443, 454-455, 91 2022, 2032, 29 564 (1971); Vale Louisiana, 399 30, 34, 90 1969, 1971, 26 409 (1970); Katz 389 347, 357, 507, 514, 576 (1967); Jones 357 493, 499, 78 1253, 1257, 1514 (1958). Predicated Amendment's purpose "shield[ing] citizen intrusions privacy," 498, 1256, carries corollaries. First, 889 (1968) quoting Warden Hayden, 387 294, 310, 87 1642, 1651, 782 (1967) (Fortas, concurring). 2039; Cupp Murphy, 412 291, 295, 2000, 2003, 36 900 Second, determining grant requirement, facts focusing rather bright-line general application. Sibron 40, 59, 1889, 1900, 917 (1968); Preston 376 364, 367, 84 881, 883, 777 (1964).1 25 designed principal concerns mind: safety preservation Recognizing contraband declared: "When made, latter escape. Otherwise, officer's well endangered, itself frustrated. addition, entirely seize destruction. items must, governed like rule." 762-763, 2039-40. 27 tailored address concerns: permits officers effected "of 'within construing phrase mean evidence." places temporal spatial limitation excusing compliance 'is substantially confined vicinity arrest.' Shipley 818, 819, 2053, 2054, 2d 732 Stoner 483, 486, 891, 856 (1964). SeeUnited 14-15, 2485, 538 (1977); Dyke Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 216, 220, 1472, 1474, 883; Edwards, 415 800, 810, 1234, 1240, 39 771 (1974)(STEWART, dissenting).2 consummated safely taken custody, justifications cease apply: point possibility contraband. 28 attempt formulate 'single, confront,' 458, 824 (1979), disregards principles, instead adopts fiction—that always recently holds: "[W]hen [and] Ante, 460. 30 ignores both achieve objective providing 31 clear, expands permitting possibly These demonstrate three companions arrest—which removed down, separated—none reached jackets left described sequence events follows: 32 "On 1978 33 Ontario County speeding. Upon approaching distinct odor marijuana emanating observed recognized type commonly used sell At ascertained amount marijuana. 34 "After found, individuals, still outside re-entered butts lying ashtrays. rifled five seat. opening them, defendant's identification." Y.2d 421 (1980) (emphasis added).3 35 Concluding "warrantless article," ibid. added), further stated: "One record vain support dissenter's arrest—the predicate measured—'the yet reduced officer.' 452, 2, 577, 423, id., 424 (dissenting opinion). 37 By approving carves dangerous Chimel. Disregarding "that commensurate rationale excepts requirement," grants "area" chance "might Under approach today, result presumably Officer handcuffed patrol placing extended locked inaccessible expansion analytically unsound inconsistent every significant lawfully arrestee. 2485 (search "conducted custody" arrest); 456-457, 2032-33, driveway house); Chambers Maroney, 42, 47, 1975, 1979, 419 (1970) (warrantless invalid once custody); 35, 1972 (area extend front step); 1474 custody courthouse 368, 883 arrest: although arrested, station searched). crucial ever searched, search. If not, failure obtain excused.4 disregarding great disservice stare decisis, policies well. seeks justify departure proclaiming new field. 393, 2413, mere efficient never disregard Moreover, forge own terms. "interior/trunk" distinction provide certain routine cases—for example, arrests seats floor—in run, create far problems solves. leaves too many questions and, important, provides few tools answers. 40 concludes take place though indicate suspect's conducted. Would minutes car? Thirty minutes? Three hours? Does matter close proximity conducted? formed why announced cars? What walking police, peering outside, believe crime committed? Could enter arrest? Even assuming today's "interior" cars—an assumption demanded logic—what meant "interior"? glove compartments, door panels, floorboards? Are wagons hatchbacks, interior, taxicabs, glass panel rest large enough "capable object"? Or "could arrested"? Compare 460-461, 461. 41 give answers questions. More abandons offers guidance seeking work himself. warned Chimel: "No consideration relevant rational limitation, allowed go items." 766, 2041. 2413. failing heed warning, undermined furthered goal consistent enforcement: failed offer nonroutine situations. 42 nearly suggests. To contrary, continue sound, seeUnited (1973), "immediate control." some measure exact control, factors surely relative number arrestees, manner restraint ability container.5 Certainly cases, doubt turn —the reaching contraband—before exercising today. unlike faithful Amendment. 44 744, wrapped respect container. now holds therein, absent found. luggage, briefcases, seems me extreme extension subscribe. otherwise (1977), overruled, Here, auto authorized absence suspicion whatsoever contain anything legitimate interest. calls caution exhibits, respect, state-court similar disarray. Compare, Hinkel Anchorage, 618 P.2d 1069 (Alaska Ulesky State, 379 So.2d 121 (Fla.App.1979). validity Cf. Gustafson Florida, 260, 266, 488, 492, 456 (concurring determine problematic content. way alters regarding basic "Container" here denotes object capable object. consoles, receptacles anywhere boxes, bags, clothing, like. encompasses encompass trunk. theory very act seizing "exclusive 576, 422. fallacious valid; article person, so-called exception." 419; Carroll 267 132, 45 280, 543. Go-Bart Importing Co. 282 344, 51 153, 158, 75 374 (1931): "There formula reasonableness. Each circumstances." 'Once accused place, warrant, (1970), 883. N.Y.2d, 2; Tr. Oral Arg. 4-5; App. A-36. 'We true Amendment] excuse showing mandate imperative.' 761, 2039, 153 (1948). sets strawman Appeals, 'exclusive control.' 461-462, 5. certainly means that. sufficient risk confederates presents here.

Category: 0