Document: 455 U.S. 1 102 S.Ct. 812 70 L.Ed.2d 778 WASHINGTON, Petitioner,v.Neil Martin CHRISMAN. No. 80-1349. Jan. 13, 1982. Syllabus by the Court An officer of Washington State University police department observed a student (Overdahl) leave dormitory carrying bottle gin; because Overdahl appeared to be under 21 (the minimum age allowable law for possession alcoholic beverages), stopped him and asked identification. After requested retrieve his identification from room, accompanied there and, while remaining in open doorway watching roommate (respondent), noticed what he believed marihuana seeds pipe lying on desk room. The then entered confirmed that were determined smelled marihuana, informed respondent their rights Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694. students indicated willingness waive such rights, after if any other drugs gave box which contained more cash. second arrived, voluntarily consented, orally writing, search yielded another controlled substance. Respondent was later charged with two counts possessing substances denial pretrial motion suppress evidence seized convicted. Appeals affirmed, but Supreme reversed. It held that, although had been placed lawful arrest, no right enter room seize contraband without warrant, students' consent subsequent fruit officer's initial entry, found during should also have suppressed. Held: 1. is not "unreasonable" Fourth Amendment officer, as matter routine, monitor movements an arrested person, judgment dictates, following arrest. need ensure own safety—as well integrity arrest—is compelling. Such surveillance impermissible invasion privacy or personal liberty individual who has arrested. Once authorized accompany purpose obtaining remain literally at Overdahl's elbow all times, thus showing "exigent circumstances" necessary warrant accompanying public corridor into Pp. 5-7. 2. did prohibit seizure discovered plain view Regardless where positioned respect room's threshold when contraband, regardless whether may hesitated briefly before entering abandon whenever considered it essential. Accordingly, act soon pipe. Pp.8-9. 3. taken respondent's pursuant valid violate Amendment. He produced being consented Thus, properly admitted trial. 9-10. 94 Wash.2d 711, 619 P.2d 971, reversed remanded. Ronald R. Carpenter, Colfax, Wash., petitioner. Robert F. Patrick, Pullman, respondent. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. We granted certiorari consider may, consistent Amendment, person residence view. 2 * On evening January 21, 1978, Officer Daugherty Carl Overdahl, University, half-gallon gin. Because forbids beverages persons Wash.Rev.Code § 66.44.270 (1981), age,1 said would wait went it. answered circumstances replied "O.K." 3 approximately 11 17 feet located 11th floor dormitory. Chrisman, roommate, entered. remained doorway, leaning against doorjamb Chrisman Overdahl. process placing small medicine cabinet, became nervous sight officer. 4 Within 30 45 seconds 8 10 standing. From training experience, type used smoke marihuana. examined seeds, confirming observing 5 694 (1966); each acknowledged understood willing them. handed earlier, three plastic bags filled $112 At point, called radio officer; arrival, told necessary. officers explained they absolute insist first obtain could search. Following this explanation, given considerable detail, conferred whispers several minutes announcing consent; signed written forms consenting quantity lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), both substances. 6 one count than 40 grams LSD, felonies 69.50.401(c) (1976) (current version 69.50.401(d) (1981)). A denied; convicted counts. appeal, affirmed convictions, upholding validity 24 Wash.App. 385, 600 1316 (1979). 7 971 (1980). arrest "there nothing prevent room," either examine warrant. court reasoned indication might weapon destroy evidence, blocking only exit presence inside escape. entry observations its interior justified circumstances," fall within plain-view exception Amendment's requirement. hold suppressed.2 Three justices dissented. They concluded reasonable keep times; accordingly, legitimate reason place entitled, doctrine, 9 certiorari, 452 959, 101 3106, 69 969 reverse. II A. "plain view" requirement permits enforcement clearly incriminating be. Coolidge New Hampshire, 403 443, 91 2022, 29 564 (1971); Harris United States, 390 234, 88 992, 19 1067 (1968). Here, therefore identification.3 contrary. central premise entitled absent "intervention" required circumstances." disagree novel reading absence affirmative available attempt escape does diminish arresting authority maintain custody over person. See Pennsylvania Mimms, 434 106, 109-110, 98 330, 332-333, 54 331 (1977); States Robinson, 414 218, 234-236, 467, 476-477, 38 427 (1973). Nor altered nature offense made. 12 Every must presumed present risk danger Cf. supra, n.5, S.Ct., 476, n.5. There way predict reliably how particular subject will react degree potential danger. Moreover, possibility supervised obvious. Although little likelihood custodial depend upon reviewing court's after-the-fact assessment situation. York Belton, 453 454, 458-460, 2860, 2863-2864, 768 (1981); U.S., 235, 476. 13 hold, therefore, arrested.4 14 follows lawful. With restraint, momentarily, farther chance recognized contraband. Had exercised undoubted side, sooner. B 15 nevertheless contends lacked even though view, "outside" time made observations. noted "[t]he record conflict stood whether, fact room." Wash.2d, 716, P.2d, 974. concluded, however, "need . let result niceties," assumed purposes decision "was pipe." Ibid. agree "such niceties" are relevant. legal significance threshold, hallway, since these places incident Respondent's argument appears stationed himself "inside" done so immediately 30- 45-second hesitation fatal; having chosen precluded proceeding further reject contention. argument, accepted, perverse effect penalizing exercising restraint circumstances. ignores fundamental protects unreasonable intrusions individual's privacy. Katz 389 347, 507, 576 (1967). "intrusion" case occurred quite properly, followed private area point unimpeded access area's contents occupants. His control evaporate choice hesitate rather some vantage cannot gainsaid unrestricted danger, destroyed—or reassessment wisdom permitting distance between 18 conclude pipe.5 This classic instance unrelated entirely reasons, obtains criminal conduct circumstances.6 III Since lawful, we difficulty concluding subsequently (1966). advised voluntary refuse demand procurement Amendment.7 20 reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. So ordered. 22 WHITE, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 23 street. quarters consent. But wanted room; do so, condition keeping close surveillance. stay deemed protect arrestee. If reasonably pursuit purposes, violated rights. enough stand sight. clear, order Daugherty's uncontradicted testimony solely confirm suspicion seashell marihuana.1 claim permission secure Rather, claimed 25 authorize dwelling merely visible outside dwelling. settled law. As 468, 2039, (1971): 26 "[P]lain alone never justify warrantless evidence. simply corollary familiar principle discussed above, amount probable cause can 'exigent circumstances.' Incontrovertible senses object premises belonging suspect establish fullest possible measure cause. repeatedly stated enforced basic rule make seizure. Taylor 286 [52 466, 76 L.Ed. 951]; Johnson 333 [68 367, 92 436]; McDonald 335 451 [69 191, 93 153]; Jones 357 493, 497-498 [78 1253, 1256-1257, 1514]; Chapman 365 610 [81 776, 828]; Trupiano 334 699 1229, 1663]."2 27 emphasized doctrine applies progress otherwise legally intrusion requirement, authorizing presence. 28 passing door home sees house, observation provide issuance Yet unless applies.3 fully supported cases cited Court's case.4 Any contrary severely undercut protection afforded physical chief evil directed. Payton York, 445 573, 585-586, 100 1371, 1379-1380, 63 639 (1980); District Court, 407 297, 313, 2125, 2134-2135, 32 752 (1972). purport otherwise. apparent agreement Neither find effectuate To require contradicting testimony. asserts elbow, wholly apart judged guarding Under approach, suggest himself. issue warranted those reasons. trial sustain basis, expressly exigent connected sufficient I am unwilling decide resolved fact; differ state now us. 31 perceive justification per se always arrestee's elbow. true limits conditions attach charge return doubt, example, permitted desks, closets, drawers, cabinets. Likewise, invade living Bright-line rules indeed useful sometimes necessary, cf. (1973), move care involved. case, involving punishing wrong perfectly basis doing so. Scott 436 128, 138, 1717, 1723, 56 168 (1978); Massachusetts Painten, 560, 564-565, 660, 662-663, 770 (1968) (WHITE, J., dissenting). us demonstrate sighting there. agrees justification. 33 For me, comes down furnished review finding court, setting conviction aside. vacate remand purpose. In addition, regulations property. Tr. 4, 34. suppression hearing, testified regulations, regard age. Id., 6-7. refers our construing not, cite Art. I, 7, Constitution, provides "[n]o shall disturbed affairs, invaded, law." While respondent, relying latter provision, urges "treat decided Constitution," clear rest independent ground. proposed identification, him, agreed claims "coerced" violation Fifth yet argues serve proof age—an element arrested—the ask "incriminating" advising counsel silent. Assuming, arguendo, fashion, vitiate legality nor failure give "Miranda warnings" preclude introduction statements custody; peripherally involved case. going neither "testimonial communication." Fisher 425 391, 408-414, 96 1569, 1579-1582, 48 39 (1976). Indeed, otherwise, doubtful ever residence, impose far greater restrictions individuals occasioned here. distinguish significantly happens pass observes believes inside. See, e.g., 585-589, 1379-1381, 10, 14-15, 68 369-370, (1948). light disposition, held, destroyed constituted circumstance" independently justifying frivolous contention facts presented here, knock announce prior hearing just purpose—"to affirm my beliefs articles, [contraband]." 44. testified: "I entering, actually physically standing doorjamb. doorway." 9, 21. memorandum watched [Overdahl]," "then closely." App. 47 (emphasis added). Similarly, stated: "Prior saw Only time, cross marijuana seeds." 389, 1316, 1318 (1979) read Washington's opinion, sufficiently intrusive unlawful likely escape, weapon. One many illustrate 1, 52 951 (1932). looked through opening garage seen cardboard liquor. smell odor whiskey coming garage. seizing building already "private area" hallway. 37. (1968), There, automobile impounded towed station. windows car open, doors unlocked, begun rain. roll up window, "a custody." 236, 993. rely automobile. lawfully it: "Once opened, registration card, name robbery victim it, plainly visible. long objects falling position introduced evidence." broad wording sentence quoted above apparently created confusion regarding doctrine. commentator remarked: "The hardest conceptual problem attending grasp universal statement policeman seeing something view; limited instances—following intrusion. source harbinger spoke carelessly terms: 'It .' "Seeing course, dispose crossing constitutionally protected thresholds." Moylan, Plain View Doctrine: Unexpected Child Great "Search Incident" Geography Battle," Mercer L.Rev. 1047, 1096 (1975). W. LaFave, Search Seizure 2.2(a) (1978). "crossing thresholds" easily so-called "automobile exception" applies, justifies car. Colorado Bannister, 449 42, 66 (1980), items occupant's n.4, 44, n.4. seek Chambers Maroney, 399 90 1975, 419 (1970); Carroll 267 132, 280, 543 (1925).

Category: 0