Document: 423 U.S. 67 96 S.Ct. 304 46 L.Ed.2d 209 State of TEXASv.Earl Elmer WHITE. No. 75-124. Dec. 1, 1975. Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 1976. See 1081, 869. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent was arrested at 1:30 p. m. by Amarillo, Tex., police officers while attempting to pass fraudulent checks a drive-in window the First National Bank Amarillo. Only 10 minutes earlier, had been informed another bank that man answering respondent's description and driving an automobile exactly matching respondent tried negotiate four drawn on nonexistent account. Upon arrival pursuant telephone call from bank, obtained teller other attempted there. The directed park his curb. While parking car, observed employee one "stuff" something between seats. officer drove him station house car At house, questioned for 30 45 and, their normal procedure, requested consent search automobile. refused search. then proceeded anyway. During search, discovered wrinkled corresponded those first bank. trial judge, relying Chambers v. Maroney, 399 42, 90 1975, 26 419 (1970), admitted over objection seized during house. judge expressly found probable cause both arrest vehicle, either scene or convicted after jury knowlingly forged instrument. Texas Court Criminal Appeals, in 3-2 decision, reversed conviction ground used evidence were without warrant violation Fourth Amendment rights. 521 S.W.2d 255 (1975). We reverse. 2 In Maroney we held with where it stopped could constitutionally do so later obtaining warrant. There, as here, "(t)he probable-cause factor" developed "still house." U.S., 52, S.Ct., 1981. Appeals erroneously excluded light judge's finding, undisturbed appellate court, there car. 3 petition certiorari motion proceed forma pauperis are granted, judgment is reversed, case remanded court further proceedings not inconsistent this opinion. 4 It ordered. 5 Reversed remanded. 6 Mr. Justice MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN concurs, dissenting. 7 misstating holding can make appear dispositive one. its brief per curiam opinion today extends clearly distinguishable factual setting, having afforded opportunity full briefing oral argument. I respectfully dissent. 8 did hold, suggests, "police warrant." Ante, page. simply be rule when reasonable take place. 9 took departure point Court's Carroll United States, 267 132, 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925): "Carroll . holds unnecessary highway; movable, occupants alerted, car's contents may never again if must obtained. Hence immediate permissible." 51, 11 Carroll, however, dispose Chambers, case, conduct "immediate search," but rather before searching it. went hold once legitimately prompt conducted. But recognition need justify seizure removal added: 12 "It unreasonable All dark lot middle night. A careful impractical perhaps safe officers, would serve owner's convenience safety have vehicle keys together Id., 52 n. 10, 13 place afternoon, no indication unsafe arresting officers. be, course, preferred brought concern they should consulted him. Surely cannot justified sole citizen might consented matter convenience. Since, then, apparent justification warrantless clear different Chambers. 14 argued taking neither more seizure, nor practical terms intrusion, than involved at-the-scene which permissible. Such contention well substantial enough argument, meritorious adoption summary fashion proceeds. Indeed, reading itself suggests merit. 15 considered rejected argument wrong permitting immobilization until "lesser" intrusion therefore outer bounds what permitted. noted "which 'greater' 'lesser' debatable question," 1981, concluded: 16 "For constitutional purposes, see difference hand seizing presenting issue magistrate carrying out 17 view, initially highway short time required seek indistinguishable vehicle. stop observation. note additional immobilizing sought less significant search: "(T)here little choose consequences obtained." Ibid. because such temporary seizures deemed intrusive searches themselves approved justified. 18 short, basic premise Chambers' conclusion pending seeking intrusive. That same quite apart subsequent dimension independently justified.* here purpose secured, facilitating thorough absence any justification, petitioner's unlawful exclude 19 denied certiorari, now writ has granted affirm least set event, below nothing does precludes reaching result under applicable state law. Oregon Hass, 420 714, 726, 95 1215, 1222, 43 570 (1975) (Marshall, J., dissenting). * One argue shorter period ask warrant, significance intrusions referred elements equation. recognizing relative intrusiveness depend "a variety circumstances," 51-52, predictability general "equating" relatively seizure. Having chosen rule, follow logical conclusion.

Category: 0