Document: 470 U.S. 811 105 S.Ct. 1643 84 L.Ed.2d 705 Joe HAYES, Petitionerv.FLORIDA. No. 83-6766. Argued Jan. 9, 1985. Decided March 20, Syllabus After concluding that petitioner was the principal suspect in a burglary-rape committed Punta Gorda, Florida, police, without warrant, went to his home obtain fingerprints. Arriving at home, police spoke on front porch, and when he expressed reluctance accompany them station house, one officer said they would arrest him. Petitioner replied rather go than be arrested. He then taken fingerprinted. When it determined prints matched those scene of crime, The trial court denied pretrial motion suppress fingerprint evidence, convicted. Florida District Court Appeal affirmed, holding, although finding neither consent by nor probable cause arrest, could transport house take fingerprints basis their reasonable suspicion involved crime. Held: Where there no petitioner, journey station, prior judicial authorization for detaining him, investigative detention fingerprinting purposes violated petitioner's rights under Fourth Amendment, as made applicable States Fourteenth; hence were inadmissible fruits an illegal detention. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 721, 89 1394, 22 676. or forcibly remove person from him where is detained, briefly, purposes, such seizure, least not supervision, sufficiently like invoke traditional rule arrests may constitutionally only cause. Pp. 813-817. 439 So.2d 896 (Fla.App.1983), reversed. Michael E. Raiden, Bartow, Fla., petitioner. William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, respondent. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 issue before us this case whether Amendment Constitution United States, virtue Fourteenth properly applied Second District, allow fingerprinting, authorization. 2 A series burglary-rapes occurred 1980. Police found latent door-knob bedroom victims, believed belonged assailant. also herringbone pattern tennis shoe print near victim's porch. Although had little specific information tie Hayes after interviewed along with 30 40 other men who generally fit description assailant, investigators came consider suspect. They decided visit or, if uncooperative, did seek warrant authorizing procedure. 3 officers voluntarily explained therefore Petitioner, words investigator, "blurted out" App. 20. While seized pair shoes plain view. 4 left placed formal arrest. Before trial, moved claiming fruit admitted evidence expressing reason. convicted burglary sexual battery found. 5 affirmed conviction. (1983). declined find consent, reasoning view threatened was, "at best, highly questionable" accompanied station. Id., 898. expressly have until obtained 899. Nevertheless, cause, held, analogizing stop-and-frisk Terry Ohio, 392 1, 88 1868, 20 889 (1968), So.2d, 899, 904. 6 Supreme review four-to-three decision, 447 886 We granted certiorari application Terry, 469 816, 82, 83 (1984), we now reverse. 7 agree 676 (1969), requires reversal judgment below. In Davis, course investigating rape, brought headquarters December 3, 1965. fingerprinted briefly questioned being released. later charged rape. An Concededly, time consented house. State nevertheless contended forbid purpose even absence warrant. rejected submission, holding Davis' subject constraints exceeded permissible limits temporary seizures authorized supra. This so though because involves repeated harassment any probing into private life thoughts often marks interrogation search, represents much less serious intrusion upon personal security types searches detentions. U.S., 727, S.Ct., 1397. Nor sufficient answer recognize inherently more reliable effective crime-solving mechanism lineups confessions. Ibid. indicated perhaps narrowly confined circumstances, might comply but unnecessary decide question since effort employ procedures necessary satisfy Amendment. 728, 1398. Rather, been detained officer. 8 Here, purposes.1 Unless cases undermined disavow below must 9 None our undercut transportation together violate Indeed, some 10 years later, Dunaway New York, 442 200, 99 2248, 60 824 (1979), refused extend supra, authorize interrogations stations proper warnings Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), given. relied reaffirmed detentions squared 213-216, 2257-2258, while same repeating possibility permit circumscribed procedure Since time, several times revisited explored reach most recently Sharpe, 675, 1568, 605 (1985), Hensley, 221, 604 (1985). But none these sustained against challenge involuntary removal absent are inclined forswear Davis. There doubt point process, can qualitatively quantitatively intrusive respect suspect's freedom movement privacy interests trigger full protection Amendments. Dunaway, 212, 2256; Royer, 460 491, 499, 103 1319, 1325, 75 229 (1983) (plurality opinion). And continues line crossed place which entitled purposes. adhere seizures, cause.2 11 foregoing implies brief field amounting necessarily impermissible addressing stop Adams Williams, 407 143, 146, 92 1921, 1923, 32 612 (1972), observed "[a] suspicious individual, order determine identity maintain status quo momentarily obtaining information, light facts known time." Also, just Term, concluded articulable supporting has criminal offense, stopped identify detain attempting additional information. 229, 232, 234, 681, 683, 684. Cf. Place, 462 696, 2637, 77 110 (1983); Martinez-Fuerte, 428 543, 96 3074, 49 1116 (1976); Brignoni-Ponce, 422 873, 95 2574, 45 607 (1975). thus support act, believing will establish negate connection carried out dispatch. Of course, suffice make warrantless entry person's identification. Payton 445 573, 100 1371, 63 639 (1980). 12 do abandon suggestion procedures, judiciary seizure fingerprinting. not, us.3 note, however, reliance enacted judicially state courts accord validity efforts insulate invalidation. Compare People Madson, 638 P.2d 18, 31-32 (Colo.1981), Evans, 215 Neb. 433, 438-439, 338 N.W.2d 788, 792-793 (1983), re Investigation Death Abe A., 56 N.Y.2d 288, 295-296, 452 N.Y.S.2d 6, 10, 437 N.E.2d 265, 269 (1982). 13 As said, Appeal. 14 It ordered. 15 BLACKMUN concurs judgment. POWELL took part consideration decision case. 17 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring 18 young man picked up police. held taken. 19 These (1969). instant unreasonable violation raise on-site constitute search Thus, noted "the general requirement advance seem admit exception context," sensibly open "whether requirements met obtaining, during investigation, individuals arrest." Court's today recognizes indistinguishable goes draw unsurprising conclusion here, reaffirming holds apprehended, forced another location Ante, 815-816. action simply too great "reasonable" I fully agree. 21 Unlike today—after tidily disposing it—returns its regrettable assault reaching beyond virtually hold onsite reasonable. See ante, 817 ("There dispatch"). implicated Consequently disagree strained today. If wanted individual measured standards cases. Yet record here contains useful applying hypothetical practice. (apparently undertaken passerby) involve singular privacy, justifiable (as patdown ) officer's protection. How elapse free go? Could compared others? parties argue questions, nothing resolution, (naturally enough) address them. 23 Ordinarily—outside context, rate wait arise legal standard set facts. apparent attempt render advisory concerning implications practice that, far know, never attempted judged determination invites either decline become fact-bound issues. put aside State's inevitable discovery exclusionary rule, see Nix 467 431, 104 2501, 81 377 applies argument presented passed first time. petition certiorari. 20-minute investigatory highway, pointed pertinent invalidated detention, "that (1) defendant dwelling; (2) transported unwillingly station; (3) subjected custodial resulting confession." At 684, n. 4, 1574, 4. exigent circumstances making

Category: 0