Document: 500 U.S. 248 111 S.Ct. 1801 114 L.Ed.2d 297 FLORIDA, Petitionerv.Enio JIMENO et al. No. 90-622. Argued March 25, 1991. Decided May 23, Syllabus Having stopped respondent Jimeno's car for a traffic infraction, police officer Trujillo, who had been following the after overhearing Jimeno arranging what appeared to be drug transaction, declared that he reason believe was carrying narcotics in car, and asked permission search it. consented, Trujillo found cocaine inside folded paper bag on car's floorboard. charged with possession intent distribute violation of Florida law, but state trial court granted his motion suppress ground consent did not carry it specific open examine its contents. The District Court Appeal Supreme affirmed. Held: A criminal suspect's Fourth Amendment right free from unreasonable searches is violated when, gives they closed container within might reasonably hold object search. satisfied under circumstances, objectively reasonable scope permitted them particular container. Here, authorization extended beyond interior surfaces bag, since place any explicit limitation aware would looking person may expected know are generally carried some form There no basis adding Amendment's basic test objective reasonableness requirement that, if wish containers must separately request each Pp. 250-252. 564 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1990), reversed remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, which WHITE, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed dissenting opinion, STEVENS, Michael J. Neimand, Miami, Fla., petitioner. John G. Roberts, Jr., Washington, D.C., U.S., as amicus curiae, supporting petitioner, by special leave Court. Jeffrey S. Weiner, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST 1 In this case we decide whether automobile, opens We find not. him automobile. 2 This began when Dade County officer, Frank overheard respondent, Enio Jimeno, transaction over public telephone. Believing involved illegal trafficking, Officer followed car. observed make turn at red light without stopping. He then pulled side road order issue citation. told committing infraction. went say explained have Respondent stated nothing hide, gave After two passengers stepped out respondent's passenger side, opened door, saw folded, brown picked up it, kilogram inside. 3 law. Before trial, moved extend motion. It although "could assumed searched bag" time consent, mere 88-23967 (Cir.Ct. Cty., Mar. 21, 1989); App. Pet. Cert. A-6. 4 affirmed court's decision evidence cocaine. 550 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). doing so, established per se rule "consent general does 'sealed area agreed defendant.' " Ibid. (citation omitted). affirmed, relying upon State v. Wells, 539 464 (1989) aff'd other grounds, 495 ----, 110 1632, 109 (1990). certiorari determine vehicle vehicle. 498 554, 112 561 (1990), now reverse judgment Florida. 5 touchstone reasonableness. Katz United States, 389 347, 360, 88 507, 516, 19 576 (1967). proscribe all state-initiated seizures; merely proscribes those unreasonable. Illinois Rodriguez, 497 2793, 148 Thus, long approved consensual because doubt conduct once do so. Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 219, 93 2041, 2043, 36 854 (1973). standard measuring "objective" reasonableness—what typical understood exchange between suspect? supra, ---- - S.Ct., 2798-2802; Royer, 460 491, 501-502, 103 1319, 1326-1327, 75 229 (1983) (opinion J.); id., 514, 1332 (BLACKMUN, dissenting). question before us, then, an consider include lying floor think is. 6 defined expressed object. States Ross, 456 798, 102 2157, 72 572 (1982). case, terms search's were simple. informed believed narcotics, conclude included bear drugs. "Contraband goods rarely strewn across trunk or car." Id., 820, 2170. therefore, floor. 7 facts therefore different relied affirming suppression case. held pry locked briefcase trunk. very likely suspect, consenting trunk, has breaking otherwise respect bag. 8 argues, him, But see sort superstructure Cf. Gates, 462 213, 2317, 76 527 (1983). suspect course delimit chooses consents. container, provides grounds requiring more authorization. "[T]he community real interest encouraging resulting yield necessary solution prosecution crime, ensure wholly innocent wrongly offense." 243, 2056. 9 accordingly reversed, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 10 so ordered. 11 whom STEVENS joins, dissenting. 12 individual's should Nothing today's dispels my belief one same standpoint. Consequently, authorize I dissent. 13 view, analysis start identifying differing expectations privacy attach cars containers. well individual limited expectation ordinarily used residence repository one's personal effects, contents exposed view. See Cardwell Lewis, 417 583, 590, 94 2464, 2469, 41 325 (1974) (plurality opinion). Moreover, "are subjected pervasive continuing governmental regulation controls," South Dakota Opperman, 428 364, 368, 96 3092, 3096, 49 1000 (1976), seized protect safety facilitate flow traffic, 368-369, 3096-3097. 14 contrast, equally heightened See, e.g., Chadwick, 433 1, 13, 97 2476, 2484, 53 538 (1977). Luggage, handbags, bags, common repositories papers protection these items intrusion lies heart Amendment. Const., Amdt. ("The people secure their . papers, against seizures, shall violated"). By placing possessions manifests "preserve[d] private," Katz, 351, 511, (1967), thus kept "free examination," 11, 2483. 15 distinct opposed merge uses transport situation, still retains Robbins California, 453 420, 425, 101 2841, 2845, 69 744 (1981) opinion); Arkansas Sanders, 442 753, 763-764, 99 2586, 2592-2593, 61 235 (1979). Nor type stores possessions. Notwithstanding majority's suggestion contrary, ante, 251-252, soundly rejected distinction "worthy" containers, like briefcases, "unworthy" bags. 16 "Even though such perhaps could evolve series cases trunks, lunch buckets, orange crates placed line other, central purpose forecloses distinction. For just most frail cottage kingdom absolutely entitled guarantees majestic mansion, also traveler carries toothbrush few articles clothing knotted scarf claim equal conceal official inspection sophisticated executive attache case." 822, 2171, (1982) (footnotes 17 Because from, far greater than, follows cannot necessarily extending At least, ambiguous independent divisible nature interests mandates wishes suspicious during automobile obtain additional If driver intended will so; not, no.** only objection prevent exploiting ignorance citizen simply anticipate rummage through packages. 18 According majority, nonetheless construe generalized "[a] container." Ante, 251. interesting contention. logic consents driver's seat deemed indeed body cavities, couriers frequently store contraband persons cavities. suppose (and hope) even majority reject conclusion, drugs certainly things than example illustrates there treating something "other than" sits, based intuitions about where however, never identifies conflating argues required '[t]he consent.' 252, quoting 2056, rationalization unsatisfactory. anything, permits broadly discourage individuals cars. Apparently, concern ask mean searching opportunity no. essence, claiming "the interest" citizens investigatory efforts law enforcement agents, rather duped them. contemplates. 20 Almost years ago, validly "consent" search—or, words, waive unlawful search—without being withhold consent. supra. Schneckloth, cited practical efficacious take meaningful steps establish dissented wrote applies force here. 21 "I conclude, reluctance, speaks practicality, really talking continued ability capitalize accomplish subterfuge achieve knowing relinquishment constitutional rights. Of "practical" ignore commands Amendment, practicality criminals apprehended, rights go board. advantage achieved cost permitting disregard limitations Constitution places behavior, democracy absorb." 288, 2079. 22 ** Alternatively, advance asking both

Category: 0