Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/scotus/c110558/robbins-v-california
Timestamp: 2020-07-07 03:08:10
Document Index: 729855117

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 257', '§ 321', '§ 8', 'Art. 6701', '§ 147']

Robbins v. California, United States Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Federal Courts, COURT CASE
The petitioner was charged with various drug offenses, his pretrial motion to suppress the evidence found when the *423 packages were unwrapped was denied, and a jury convicted him. In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in all relevant respects. This Court granted a writ of certiorari, vacated the Court of Appeal's judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 443 U.S. 903. On remand, the Court of Appeal again found the warrantless opening of the packages constitutionally permissible, since the trial court "could reasonably [have] conclude[d] that the contents of the packages could have been inferred from their outward appearance, so that appellant could not have held a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the contents." 103 Cal. App. 3d 34, 40, 162 Cal. Rptr. 780, 783. Because of continuing uncertainty as to whether closed containers found during a lawful warrantless search of an automobile may themselves be searched without a warrant, this Court granted certiorari. 449 U.S. 1109.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which is made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, establishes "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This Court has held that a search is per se unreasonable, and thus violates the Fourth Amendment, if the police making the search have not first secured from a neutral magistrate a warrant that satisfies the terms of the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment. See, e. g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357; Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 33. Although the Court has identified some exceptions to this warrant requirement, the Court has emphasized that these exceptions are "few," "specifically established," and "well-delineated." Katz v. United States, supra, at 357.
Among these exceptions is the so-called "automobile exception." See Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1. In Carroll *424 v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, the Court held that a search warrant is unnecessary "where there is probable cause to search an automobile stopped on the highway; the car is movable, the occupants are alerted, and the car's contents may never be found again if a warrant must be obtained." Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 51. In recent years, we have twice been confronted with the suggestion that this "automobile exception" somehow justifies the warrantless search of a closed container found inside an automobile. Each time, the Court has refused to accept the suggestion.
Second, the Court acknowledged that "inherent mobility" cannot alone justify the automobile exception, since the Court has sometimes approved warrantless searches in which the automobile's mobility was irrelevant. See Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441-442; South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 367. The automobile exception, the Court said, is thus also supported by "the diminished expectation of privacy which surrounds the automobile" and which arises from the facts that a car is used for transportation and not as a residence or a repository of personal effects, that a car's occupants and contents travel in plain view, and that automobiles are necessarily highly regulated by government. United States v. Chadwick, supra, at 12-13. No such diminished *425 expectation of privacy characterizes luggage; on the contrary, luggage typically is a repository of personal effects, the contents of closed pieces of luggage are hidden from view, and luggage is not generally subject to state regulation.
In Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, the State of Arkansas argued that the "automobile exception" should be extended to allow the warrantless search of everything found in an automobile during a lawful warrantless search of the vehicle itself. The Court rejected this argument for much the same reason it had rejected this Government's argument in Chadwick. Pointing out, first, that "[o]nce police have seized a suitcase, as they did here, the extent of its mobility is in no way affected by the place from which it was taken," the Court said that there generally "is no greater need for warrantless searches of luggage taken from automobiles than of luggage taken from other places." 442 U. S., at 763-764. Second, the Court saw no reason to believe that the privacy expectation in a closed piece of luggage taken from a car is necessarily less than the privacy expectation in closed pieces of luggage found elsewhere.
The respondent, however, proposes that the nature of a container may diminish the constitutional protection to which it otherwise would be entitledthat the Fourth Amendment protects only containers commonly used to transport "personal effects." By personal effects the respondent means property worn on or carried about the person or having some intimate relation to the person. In taking this position, the *426 respondent relies on numerous opinions that have drawn a distinction between pieces of sturdy luggage, like suitcases, and flimsier containers, like cardboard boxes. Compare, e. g., United States v. Benson, 631 F.2d 1336 (CA8 1980) (leather totebag); United States v. Miller, 608 F.2d 1089 (CA5 1979) (plastic portfolio); United States v. Presler, 610 F.2d 1206 (CA4 1979) (briefcase); United States v. Meier, 602 F.2d 253 (CA10 1979) (backpack); United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 147 (CA5 1979) (duffelbag); United States v. Stevie, 582 F.2d 1175 (CA8 1978), with United States v. Mannino, 635 F.2d 110 (CA2 1980) (plastic bag inside paper bag); United States v. Goshorn, 628 F.2d 697, 699 (CA1 1980) ("`[t]wo plastic bags, further in three brown paper bags, further in two clear plastic bags'"); United States v. Gooch, 603 F.2d 122 (CA10 1979) (plastic bag); United States v. Mackey, 626 F.2d 684 (CA9 1980) (paper bag); United States v. Neumann, 585 F.2d 355 (CA8 1978) (cardboard box).
Second, even if one wished to import such a distinction into the Fourth Amendment, it is difficult if not impossible to perceive any objective criteria by which that task might be accomplished. What one person may put into a suitcase, another may put into a paper bag. United States v. Ross, *427 210 U. S. App. D. C. 342, 655 F.2d 1159 (1981) (en banc). And as the disparate results in the decided cases indicate, no court, no constable, no citizen, can sensibly be asked to distinguish the relative "privacy interests" in a closed suitcase, briefcase, portfolio, duffelbag, or box.
The Court's judgment is justified, though not compelled, by the Court's opinion in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979). Accordingly, I join the judgment. As the plurality today goes well beyond Sanders or any other prior case to establish a new "bright-line" rule, I cannot join its opinion.[1] It would require officers to obtain warrants in order to examine the contents of insubstantial containers in which no one had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The plurality's approach strains the rationales of our prior cases and imposes substantial burdens on law enforcement without vindicating any significant values of privacy. I nevertheless concur in the judgment because the manner in which the package at issue was carefully wrapped and sealed evidenced petitioner's expectation of privacy in its contents. As we have stressed *430 in prior decisions, a central purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to safeguard reasonable expectations of privacy.
I have joined the Court's opinion in Belton because I concluded that a "bright-line" rule was necessary in the quite *431 different circumstances addressed there.[2]Belton, unlike this case, concerns only the exception to the warrant requirement for a search incident to arrest; contrary to JUSTICE STEVENS' implication, post, at 444, 447-448, 451, and n. 13, the courts below never found that the officer had probable cause to search the automobile. Belton presents the volatile and fluid situation of an encounter between an arresting officer and a suspect apprehended on the public highway. While Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), determines in principle the scope of a warrantless search incident to arrest, practical necessity requires that we allow an officer in these circumstances to secure thoroughly the automobile without requiring him in haste and under pressure to make close calculations about danger to himself or the vulnerability of evidence.
Any "bright-line" rule does involve costs. Belton trades marginal privacy of containers within the passenger area of an automobile for protection of the officer and of destructible evidence. The balance of these interests strongly favors the Court's rule. The occupants of an automobile enjoy only a limited expectation of privacy in the interior of the automobile itself. See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 279 (1973) (POWELL, J., concurring). This limited interest is diminished further when the occupants are placed under custodial arrest. Cf, United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 237 (1973) (POWELL, J., concurring). Immediately preceding the arrest, the passengers have complete control over the entire interior of the automobile, and can place weapons or contraband into pockets or other containers as the officer approaches. Thus, practically speaking, it is difficult to justify varying degrees of protection for the general interior of the car and for the various containers found within. These *432 considerations do not apply to the trunk of the car, which is not within the control of the passengers either immediately before or during the process of arrest.
Chadwick and Sanders require police to obtain a warrant to search the contents of a container only when the container is one that generally serves as a repository for personal effects or that has been sealed in a manner manifesting a reasonable expectation that the contents will not be open to public scrutiny. See Chadwick, supra, at 13; Sanders, 442 U. S., at 764. See, e. g., United States v. Mannino, 635 F.2d 110, 114 (CA2 1980); United States v. Goshorn, 628 F.2d 697, 700-701 (CA1 1980); United States v. Mackey, 626 F.2d 684, 687-688 (CA9 1980); United States v. Ross, 210 U. S. App. D. C. 342, 356-362, 655 F.2d 1159, 1173-1179 (1981) (en banc) (Tamm, J., dissenting). This resembles in principle the inquiry courts must undertake to determine whether a search violates the Fourth Amendment rights of a complaining party. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978); id., at 150-152 (POWELL, J., *433 concurring). In each instance, "[t]he ultimate question . . . is whether one's claim to privacy from government intrusion is reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances." Id., at 152; see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
I continue to think the Court is in error and that it would have been better, see 442 U. S., at 772, "to adopt a clear-cut rule to the effect that a warrant should not be required to seize and search any personal property found in an automobile that may in turn be seized and searched without a warrant *437 pursuant to Carroll [v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925),] and Chambers [v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970)]."
Not only has historical study "suggested that in emphasizing the warrant requirement over the reasonableness of the search the Court has `stood the fourth amendment on its head' from a historical standpoint," Coolidge, supra, at 492 (Harlan, J., concurring) (quoting T. Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation 23-24 (1969), but the Court has failed to appreciate the impact of its decisions, not mandated by the Fourth Amendment, on law enforcement. Courts, including this Court, often make the rather casual assumption that police are not substantially frustrated in their efforts to apprehend those whom they have probable cause to arrest or to gather evidence of crime when they have probable cause to search by the judicially created preference for a warrant, apparently assuming that the typical case is one in which an officer can make a quick half mile ride to the nearest precinct station in an urban area to obtain such a warrant. See e. g., Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 222 (1981). But this casual assumption simply does not fit the realities of sparsely populated "cow counties" located in some of the Southern and Western States, where at least *439 apocryphally the number of cows exceed the number of people, and the number of square miles in the county may exceed 10,000 and the nearest magistrate may be 25 or even 50 miles away. The great virtue of the opinion in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was that it made allowance for these vast diversities between States; unfortunately such an approach to the Fourth Amendment in the true spirit of federalism was, as Justice Harlan observed, rejected in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
Even aside from these general observations on the warrant requirement, the case we decide today falls within what has been and should continue to be an exception to that requirement the automobile exception. In Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 439-440 (1973), we explained that one class of cases which constitutes "at least a partial exception to this general rule [of requiring a warrant] is automobile searches. Although vehicles are `effects' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, `for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment there is a constitutional difference between houses and cars.' Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52 (1970). See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153-154 (1925)." We also stated in Cady:
"[T]he application of Fourth Amendment standards, originally intended to restrict only the Federal Government, *440 to the States presents some difficulty when searches of automobiles are involved. The contact with vehicles by federal law enforcement officers usually, if not always, involves the detection or investigation of crimes unrelated to the operation of a vehicle. Cases such as Carroll v. United States, supra, and Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949), illustrate the typical situations in which federal officials come into contact with and search vehicles. In both cases, members of a special federal unit charged with enforcing a particular federal criminal statute stopped and searched a vehicle when they had probable cause to believe that the operator was violating that statute.
I would not draw from the language of either Cady or of South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), the conclusion which the plurality draws today that "`inherent mobility' cannot alone justify the automobile exception, since the Court has sometimes approved warrantless searches in which the automobile's mobility was irrelevant." Ante, at 424. Logically, it seems to me that the conclusion to be drawn from Cady and Opperman is that one need not demonstrate that a particular automobile was capable of being moved, but that automobiles as a class are inherently mobile, and a defendant seeking to suppress evidence obtained from an automobile should not be heard to say that this particular automobile had broken down, was in a parking lot under the supervision *441 of the police, or the like. Thus, I continue to adhere to the view expressed by JUSTICE BLACKMUN:
"Not all containers and packages found by police during *442 the course of a search will deserve the full protection of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, some containers (for example a kit of burglar tools or a gun case) by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance. Similarly, in some cases the contents of a package will be open to `plain view,' thereby obviating the need for a warrant. See Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236 (1968) (per curiam)." 442 U. S., at 764-765, n. 13.
The present case aptly illustrates the problems inherent in the Fourth Amendment analysis adopted by the Court in the past two decades. Rather than apply the automobile exception *443 to a situation such as the present one, the Court in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977), and Sanders, supra, attempted to limit that exception so as not to include certain, but not all, containers found within an automobile. Apparently, the plurality today decides that distinguishing between containers found in a car is too difficult a task and accordingly denudes the language found in footnote 13 of Sanders of most of its meaning. It does so evidently in search of a workable rule to govern automobile searches. I seek such a workable rule as well, but unlike the plurality I feel that such a rule cannot be found as long as the Court continues in the direction in which it is headed. Instead, I would return to the rationale of Carroll and Chambers and hold that a warrant should not be required to seize and search any personal property found in an automobile that may in turn be constitutionally seized and searched without a warrant. I would not abandon this reasonably "bright line" in search of another.
Such was the state of the law prior to the Court's discursive writing in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753.[2] Because *445 as THE CHIEF JUSTICE cogently demonstrated in his separate opinion in Sandersthe actual holdings in both Sanders and United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, are entirely consistent with that view of the law, I would apply it in this case. Sanders and Chadwick are both plainly distinguishable from this case because neither case truly involved the automobile exception.[3] In Chadwick, federal *446 narcotic agents had probable cause to search a footlocker which was seized immediately after being placed in the trunk of a car. In Sanders, the officers had probable cause to believe a particular piece of luggage contained contraband before it was placed in the trunk of a taxicab. The officers, however, had no reason to search the vehicle in either case, and no right to arrest the driver in Sanders. The issue in Chadwick and Sanders would have been exactly the same if the officers had apprehended the suspects before they placed the footlocker in the trunk of the car in Chadwick or before they hailed the taxi in Sanders.[4] The officers' duty to obtain a warrant in both cases could not be evaded by simply waiting until the luggage was placed in a vehicle.
In Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, the Court reaffirmed the automobile exception established a half century earlier in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, and upheld the warrantless search of an automobile on probable cause.[7] The "exception" recognized in Carroll and Chambers, however, applies merely to the requirement that police seek a warrant from a magistrate before conducting a search of places or things protected by the Fourth Amendment. The scope of *449 any search that is within the exception should be just as broad as a magistrate could authorize by warrant if he were on the scene; the automobile exception to the warrant requirement therefore justifies neither more nor less than could a magistrate's warrant. If a magistrate issued a search warrant for an automobile, and officers in conducting the search authorized by the warrant discovered a suitcase in the car, they surely would not need to return to the magistrate for another warrant before searching the suitcase.[8] The fact that the marihuana found in petitioner's car was wrapped in opaque green plastic does not take the search out of the automobile exception.[9] Accordingly, the search conducted here was proper, and the judgment of the California Court of Appeal should be affirmed.
The Court's careful and repeated use of the term "lawful custodial arrest"[10] seems to imply that a significant distinction between custodial arrests and ordinary arrests exists. I am familiar with the distinction between a "stop," see, e. g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, and an "arrest," but I am not familiar with any difference between custodial arrests and any other kind of arrest. It is, of course, true that persons apprehended for traffic violations are frequently not required to accompany the arresting officer to the police station before they are permitted to leave on their own recognizance or by using their driver's licenses as a form of bond. It is also possible that state law or local regulations may in some cases prohibit police officers from taking persons into custody for violation of minor traffic laws. As a matter of constitutional law, however, any person lawfully arrested for the pettiest misdemeanor may be temporarily placed in custody.[11] Indeed, *451 as the Court has repeatedly held, every arrest is a seizure of the person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The rule of constitutional law the Court fashions today therefore potentially applies to every arrest of every occupant of an automobile.[12]
[3] In particular, it is not argued that the opening of the packages was incident to a lawful custodial arrest. Cf. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752. See Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 764, n. 11. Further, the respondent does not argue that the petitioner consented to the opening of the packages.
[3] The plurality overestimates the difficulties involved in determining whether a party has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular container. Many containers, such as personal luggage, are "inevitably associated with the expectation of privacy." Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 762 (1979). Many others, varying from a plastic cup to the ubiquitous brown paper grocery sack, consistently lack such an association. In the middle are containers, such as cardboard boxes and laundry bags, that may be used, although imperfectly, as repositories of personal effects, but often are not. As to such containers, I would adopt the view of Chief Judge Coflin:
When confronted with the claim that police should have obtained a warrant before searching an ambiguous container, a court should conduct a hearing to determine whether the defendant had manifested a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the container. See id., at 701. Relevant to such an inquiry should be the size, shape, material, and condition of the exterior, the context within which it is discovered, and whether the possessor had taken some significant precaution, such as locking, securely sealing or binding the container, that indicates a desire to prevent the contents from being displayed upon simple mischance. A prudent officer will err on the side of respecting ambigous assertions of privacy, see Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 152, n. 1 (1978) (POWELL, J., concurring), and a realistic court seldom should second-guess the good-faith judgment of the officer in the field when the public consequently must suffer from the suppression of probative evidence, cf. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 611-612 (1975) (POWELL, J., concurring).
[2] Prior to the Court's decision in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, courts routinely relied on the automobile exception to uphold the search of a container found in a car. The court in United States v. Soriano, 497 F.2d 147, 149 (CA5 1974), cited Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, and stated:
See also United States v. Anderson, 500 F.2d 1311, 1315 (CA5 1974); United States v. Evans, 481 F.2d 990, 993-994 (CA9 1973). Indeed, in many cases it apparently never occurred to defendants challenging the validity of automobile searches or the courts considering such challenges that a search of a suitcase or other container located in an automobile presented a different question than the search of the car itself. See, e. g., United States v. Bowman, 487 F.2d 1229 (CA10 1973); United States v. Garner, 451 F.2d 167 (CA6 1971); United States v. Chapman, 474 F.2d 300 (CA5 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 835; State v. Hearn, 340 So. 2d 1365 (La. 1976); State v. Lee, 113 N. H. 313, 307 A.2d 827 (1973); Cf. State v. Warren, 283 So. 2d 740 (La. 1973). Even after Chadwick was decided, courts continued to apply the automobile exception to uphold searches of containers found in cars and rejected the argument that Chadwick constituted a limitation on the automobile exception. See United States v. Milhollan, 599 F.2d 518, 525-527 (CA3 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 909; United States v. Finnegan, 568 F.2d 637, 641 (CA9 1977); United States v. Ochs, 595 F.2d 1247 (CA2 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 955. But see United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 147, 150-152, and n. 6 (CA5 1979) (repudiating United States v. Soriano, supra).
[6] Compare McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, with East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, see especially STEWART, J., dissenting in McDaniel, supra, at 154; see also Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594, 609 (STEWART, J., dissenting); id., at 606 (STEVENS, J., concurring).
[10] See post, at 455, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, and the quotation from United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, post, at 461.
[11] JUSTICE STEWART apparently believes that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments might provide some impediment to police taking a defendant into custody for violation of a "minor traffic offense." See Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 266 (STEWART, J. concurring). Although I agree that a police officer's authority to restrain an individual's liberty should be limited in the context of stops for routine traffic violations, see Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 115 (STEVENS, J., dissenting), the Court has not directly considered the question whether "there are some constitutional limits upon the use of `custodial arrests' as the means for invoking the criminal process when relatively minor offenses are involved." See 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 5.2, p. 290 (1978); see also id., § 5.1, pp. 256-260, § 5.2, pp. 281-291. To the extent that the Court has considered the scope of an officer's authority in making routine traffic stops, the Court has not imposed constitutional restrictions on that authority. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, supra; United States v. Robinson, supra; Gustafson v. Florida, supra. Thus the Court may be assuming that its new rule will be limited by a constitutional restriction that does not exist.
[12] After today, the driver of a vehicle stopped for a minor traffic violation must look to state law for protection from unreasonable searches. Such protection may come from two sources. Statutory law may provide some protection. Legislatures in some States permit officers to take traffic violators into custody only for certain violations. See, e. g., Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 257.727-257.728 (1979). In some States, however, the police officer has the discretion to make a "custodial arrest" for violation of any motor vehicle law. See, e. g., Iowa Code §§ 321.482, 321. 485 (1980); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-2105 (1975). See also Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 6701d, §§ 147-153 (Vernon 1977); Wallace v. State, 467 S.W.2d 608, 609-610 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); Tores v. State, 518 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (officer may take driver into custody for any traffic offense except speeding). Additionally, the failure to produce a satisfactory bond will often justify "detention and custodial arrest." People v. Mathis, 55 Ill. App. 3d 680, 684, 371 N.E.2d 245, 249 (1977). See also Y. Kamisar, W. LaFave, & J. Israel, Modern Criminal Procedure 402, n. a (Supp. 4th ed. 1980). Given the incomplete protection afforded by statutory law, drivers in many States will have to persuade state supreme courts to interpret their state constitution's equivalent to the Fourth Amendment to prohibit the unreasonable searches permitted by the Court here.
[13] The conclusion that the officers had probable cause to search the car is supported by Robbins, in which the plurality seems to assume the existence of probable cause on the basis of similar facts. Cf. United States v. Bowman, 487 F.2d 1229, 1231 (CA10 1973); United States v. Campos, 471 F.2d 296 (CA9 1972).
[15] It is true that the State in Belton did not argue that the automobile exception justified the search of respondent's jacket pocket. Nevertheless, just as the admission of a piece of evidence will be affirmed if any valid reason for admission existedeven if the one relied upon by the trial judge was not validI would uphold the admission of this evidence if any theory justifying the search is valid. This is particularly appropriate given the State's understandable reluctance to argue an issue that many courts have considered to be foreclosed by Sanders. See, e. g., United States v. Rigales, 630 F.2d 364 (CA5 1980); United States v. MacKay, 606 F.2d 264 (CA9 1979); State v. Jenkins, 619 P.2d 108 (Haw. 1980).
DocketNumber： 80-148
Citation Numbers： 453 U.S. 420, 101 S. Ct. 2841, 69 L. Ed. 2d 744, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 132
United States v. Maddox , 614 F.3d 1046 ( 2010 )
United States v. Brown, Rocky , 334 F.3d 1161 ( 2003 )
United States v. Taylor , 497 F.3d 673 ( 2007 )
United States v. Stanley , 653 F.3d 946 ( 2011 )
United States v. Patrick C. Lupo , 652 F.2d 723 ( 1981 )
United States v. Ricardo E. Rivera , 654 F.2d 1048 ( 1981 )