Opinion ID: 418796
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Retroactivity of Ross

Text: 11 In United States v. Ross, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2172, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982), the Supreme Court rejected the rule of Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 69 L.Ed.2d 744 (1981), relied on by the district court when it granted the defendants' suppression motion. In Robbins, the Court considered whether police officers entitled to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile stopped on a public roadway may open a container found within the vehicle. The Court reversed Robbins' conviction on the ground that a closed opaque container may not be opened without a warrant, even if it is found during the course of the lawful search of an automobile. Id. at 428, 101 S.Ct. at 2847. 12 The following year, in Ross, the Court reexamined the automobile exception and concluded that [i]f probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search. 102 S.Ct. at 2172. The government argues that the decision in Ross must control here, requiring reversal, while the appellees contend that the decision should not be given retroactive effect. 13 This court already has applied Ross retroactively, although without discussion of the issue. United States v. Cleary, 683 F.2d 313 (9th Cir.1982). See also United States v. Rivera, 684 F.2d 308 (5th Cir.1982). The opinion in Ross indicates that the Supreme Court intended the rule to apply retroactively. See 102 S.Ct. at 2172 ([I]t is clear that no legitimate reliance interest can be frustrated by our decision today). No other result makes sense. The purpose of refusing to apply retroactively a new decision enforcing the exclusionary rule is to avoid penalizing police conduct when the police reasonably relied on existing judicial precedent. United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 537-39, 95 S.Ct. 2313, 2317-18, 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975); see, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 595 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir.1979). When a court determines that a particular police practice does not violate the Constitution, there is no reason not to apply that decision retroactively. Because the Supreme Court has declared searches such as those involved here to be constitutional, no police misconduct has in fact occurred. Hence, there is no misbehavior to be deterred, and the interest in maintaining judicial integrity is not implicated, especially in light of the previously unsettled state of the law in this area. United States v. Burns, 684 F.2d 1066, 1074 (2d Cir.1982) (applying Ross retroactively).