Document: 526 U.S. 295119 S.Ct. 1297143 L.Ed.2d 408 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 98 184 WYOMING, PETITIONERv.SANDRA HOUGHTON ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO COURTOF WYOMING April 5, 1999 Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case presents question whether police officers violate Fourth Amendment when they search a passenger's personal belongings inside an automobile that have probable cause to believe contains contraband. 2 * In early morning hours July 23, 1995, Wyoming Highway Patrol officer stopped for speeding and driving with faulty brake light. There were three passengers in front seat car: David Young (the driver), his girlfriend, respondent. While questioning Young, noticed hypodermic syringe Young's shirt pocket. He left occupants under supervision two backup as he went get gloves from patrol car. Upon return, instructed step out car place on hood. The then asked why had syringe; refreshing candor, replied used it take drugs. 3 At this point, ordered female them identification. Respondent falsely identified herself "Sandra James" stated she did not any Meanwhile, light admission, searched passenger compartment On back seat, found purse, which respondent claimed hers. removed purse wallet containing respondent's driver's license, identifying her properly Sandra K. Houghton. When lied about name, replied: "In things bad." 4 Continuing brown pouch black wallet-type container. denied former was hers, ignorance how came be there; contain drug paraphernalia 60 ccs methamphetamine. admitted ownership container, also paraphernalia, (which acknowledged hers) 10 methamphetamine amount insufficient support felony conviction at issue case. fresh needle-track marks arms. placed arrest. 5 State charged possession liquid greater than three-tenths gram. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. §35 7 1031(c)(iii) (Supp. 1996). After hearing, trial court motion suppress all evidence obtained fruit violation Fourteenth Amendments. held contraband, and, by extension, containers therein could hold such A jury convicted charged. 6 Supreme Court, divided vote, reversed announced following rule: "Generally, once is established vehicle, entitled may object search. However, if knows or should know container effect who suspected criminal activity, outside scope unless someone opportunity conceal contraband within avoid detection." 956 P.2d 363, 372 (1998). 8 violated Amendments because "knew known belong driver, but one passengers," "there no passengers' effects reason been purse." Ibid. II 9 protects "[t]he right people secure their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches seizures." determining particular governmental action violates provision, we inquire first regarded unlawful seizure common law framed. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 927, 931 (1995); California Hodari D., 499 621, 624 (1991). Where inquiry yields answer, must evaluate traditional standards reasonableness assessing, hand, degree intrudes upon individual's privacy other, needed promotion legitimate interests. See, e.g., Vernonia School Dist. 47J Acton, 515 646, 652 653 (1995). It uncontested present there illegal drugs Carroll United States, 267 132 (1925), similarly involved warrantless enforcement officials contained case, bootleg liquor. Court concluded Framers would reasonable legislation enacted Congress 1789 through 1799 well subsequent Founding era beyond empowered customs ship vessel without warrant goods subject duty. Id., 150 153. States Ross, 456 798, 806 (1982); Boyd 116 616, 623 (1886). Thus, "contraband concealed illegally transported other vehicle warrant" where exists. Carroll, supra, 11 We furthermore read historical show (if cause) automobile. upheld paper bag leather trunk defendant's Stevens, writing observed: 12 "It noteworthy relied concerned laws imposing duties imported merchandise . Presumably shipped various kinds, just today. Since authorized vessels beasts merchandise, inconceivable intended obtain every package discovered during search; certainly open shipping necessary merely examine exterior cartons boxes smuggled might concealed. During virtually entire history our country horse-drawn carriage, 1921 roadster, modern has assumed lawful include search." 820, n. 26. 13 Ross summarized its holding follows: "If justifies lawfully part contents 825 (emphasis added). And later cases describing characterized applying broadly car, qualification ownership. Acevedo, 500 565, 572 (1991) ("[T]his took critical saying closed cars presence automobile"); Johns, 469 478, 479 480 (1985) (Ross "held conduct search"). 14 To sure, belonged anyone driver. Even so, rule limited belonging those passengers, expected substantial limitation expressed. And, more importantly, apparent formed basis Ross's holding. fact, however, nothing statutes upon, practice statutes, except packages suspect ship, 15 Finally, observe analytical principle underlying fully consistent proposal balance jurisprudence. permissible "is defined places found." U.S., 824. same reflected earlier involving constitutionality directed premises crime: " element owner property crime specific 'things' seized are located entry sought." Zurcher Stanford Daily, 436 547, 556 (1978). statement illustrated citation description supra. 557. 16 sum, neither itself nor admits distinction among based like showing individualized each one. belongings, attached glove compartment, "in" 17 evidence, described thought equivocal, find balancing relative interests weighs decidedly favor allowing belongings. Passengers, less drivers, possess reduced expectation regard transport cars, "trave[l] public thoroughfares," Cardwell Lewis, 417 583, 590 (1974), "seldom serv[e] repository effects," ibid., subjected stop examination enforce "pervasive" controls "[a]s everyday occurrence," South Dakota Opperman, 428 364, 368 (1976), finally, exposed traffic accidents render scrutiny. 18 intrusiveness indeed even dignity dispositive differ substantially here. Di Re, 332 581 (1948), justify body passenger. Ybarra Illinois, 444 85 (1979), tavern bartender permit bar's patrons. These turned unique, significantly heightened protection afforded one's person. "Even outer clothing constitutes severe, though brief, intrusion cherished security, surely annoying, frightening, perhaps humiliating experience." Terry Ohio, 392 1, 24 25 (1968). Such traumatic consequences item car.1 19 Whereas expectations are, described, considerably diminished, stake substantial. Effective appreciably impaired ability wrongdoing hidden As car-search cases, "ready mobility" creates risk will permanently lost while obtained. Carney, 471 386, 390 (1985). addition, unlike unwitting patron often engaged enterprise interest concealing fruits wrongdoing. Cf. Maryland Wilson, 519 408, 413 414 (1997). able hide readily see, Rawlings Kentucky, 448 98, 102 (1980) surreptitiously, knowledge permission. (This last possibility provided defense trial; testified most traveling companions another times, including time "half asleep" car.) 20 these factors favoring always present, conducted eye generality cases. require investigating positive driver enterprise, occasion surreptitiously friendly permission, impose requirements so seldom met "passenger's property" dramatically reduce seize crime. Of course attach (under Court's rule) until belongs But exception became widely known, expect passenger-confederates claim everything own. anticipate bog litigation form both civil lawsuits motions trials questions believed ownership, inferred objective factors, confederate, introduced into knowledge.2 competing interests, determinations "reasonableness" account practical realities. think militate needs enforcement, personal-privacy ordinarily weak. 21 invent accurately summarized, perplexing protect only passenger, rather (what seems much logical) Surely Houghton's invaded absent searched. more, less, league. easier identify purported many (like ) seized, identification occur later, station-house; site can imagine clearly marked owner's name phone number, confirm denial sensible (and supported caselaw) searched, otherwise, 22 23 inspect capable judgment reversed. ordered. Notes 1. dissent begins analysis, post, 1-2, assertion governed decision held, describes it, requirement "searches pockets space between underwear," 2. attributes "the settled drivers person property, claims "newly minted" today's "new worn briefcase peroration, quotes extensively Jackson's makes very clear precisely upon: "The Government says contend that, armed residence only, persons it. occupant house quite car." 587 (quoted 4). Does really Jackson house-search say large standing safe violin visiting godfather? what meant all. referring "distinction purse" disparages, assuredly minted," see 7. thinks "pockets" "clothing" do count person, strip searches. 26 "confident officer's apply requiring obviously owned custody passenger," 4. If dissent's strange criterion ("obviously of") preceding paean importance preserving rings little hollow rehearing. Should enough owns briefcase, concrete otherwise? Or consider example "obvious" ownership? reflection, obvious obviousness on-the-cheap turns unclear, hence unadministrable. maybe does mean propose obviously-owned-by-and-in-the-custody-of test after all, since few sentences endorses, simpliciter, "a belongings," ibid. For reasons text, work. Breyer, J., concurring PETITIONER SANDRA 27 28 [April 1999] 29 concurring. 30 I join understanding inform, automatically determine, answer question. Ante, 3. agree say, drugs, establish container's prior (whenever, example, "that's mine"), resulting uncertainty destroy workability bright-line set forth 798 (1982). time, regardless. Hence authorize number otherwise justify. 31 point certain limitations describes. Obviously, applies Equally obviously, automobiles. extend notes, 581, 586-587 heavily Stevens' dissent, clear, 'a clothing,' ante, 7, (quoting (1968)), different matter respect provides "significantly protection." Ibid; cf. 85, 91 (1979); Sibron New York, 40, 62 64 32 Less my view important, fact here issue, woman's considerable distance owner, looking Purses special containers. They repositories especially items generally keep times. So am tempted involves similar govern both. given cannot argue legal difference, warned trying make kind distinction. 822. man's billfold, "outer clothing," 24, receive increased protection. (Stevens, dissenting) 587). separate circumstances, type difference. reason, opinion. dissenting 33 34 35 whom Souter Ginsburg join, dissenting. 36 Wyoming's highest decided state highway patrolman unlawfully petitioned writ certiorari. propriety searching government developed conduct. conceded trooper lacked warrant, consent, "probable passenger." Pet. Cert. i. preference warrants suspicion, result reached affirm judgment. 37 Amendment's requirement, either defendant operator search, raised custody.1 confronting (1948) apply. 583 (addressing underwear, uncovered counterfeit fuel rations). here, information prompting directly implicated Today, instead adhering fashions new purse. sides newly minted test, "container" (whether pocket pouch) vehicle. Moreover, plain serious Re. Jersey T. L. O., 325, 339 (1985); Ex parte Jackson, 96 727, 733 (1878). 38 apart rights-restrictive approach dictated precedent. (1982), integrity "his automobile," id., 823, categorically rejected notion "defined nature secreted," "Rather, thus disapproved possible container-based pocketbook. Ironically, "[p]robable taxi cab," apparently taxidriver somewhere 39 Nor persuaded mere spatial association acceptable presuming partners ignoring purse.2 Whether required 132, 153 least not. (1998); App. 21. 40 view, State's effective outweigh concerns issue.3 confident "passenger-confederate[']s" circumvent rule. 8. Certainly ostensible clarity attractive. virtue justification adoption. Arizona Hicks, 321, 329 (1987); Mincey Arizona, 437 385, 393 bit simple rule; simply privacy. 41 decide accord said privacy, squarely presented. 5. What wrote fifty years ago sound today: 42 Necessity, argument advanced seem strong guests issued none issued. By parity reasoning disclaims house, suppose valid incident execution. How confers latitude permit? 43 "We ground expanding ruling arrest convinced loses immunities entitled." 587; proper "no broader" cause).4 44 Instead ordinary principles majority extends allow misconduct. Thankfully, automobile-centered analysis limits outcome 45 respectfully dissent. 46 565 (1991); 386 478 (1925); W. LaFave, Search Seizure §7.2(c), pp. 487 488, 113 (3d ed. 1996); §7.2(d), 506 167. 47 ("We entitled"); Chandler Miller, 520 305, 308 (1997) (emphasizing suspicion); 91, 94 (1979) (explaining person's propinquity others independently activity not, give rise person," discussing Re); Brown Texas, 443 47, 52 63 (1968); Padilla, 508 77, 82 (1993) (per curiam) ("Expectations claims. Participants conspiracy adds detracts them"). 48 knowledge, never restricted ourselves two-step wherein considered 18th-century "yields answer." Neither precedent cited majority's mandate approach. discussion, attempt address contemporary nature. 10. Either unconvinced own recitation materials, determined considering additional appropriate event. admit former; latter, alone, prerequisite 49 response crafted imaginative footnote suggesting Re rested, Re's status intrusive character n.1. That persuade me differently woman gas coupons Significantly, commenting immediately paragraphs quoted stated: "But National Prohibition Act direct charge offending better assume loaded liquor remain innocent car's cargo pieces carried driver." 586 (1948).

Category: 0