Document: 463 U.S. 765 103 S.Ct. 3319 77 L.Ed.2d 1003 ILLINOIS, Petitionerv.John ANDREAS. No. 81-1843. Argued March 30, 1983. Decided July 5, Syllabus A large, locked metal container, shipped by air from Calcutta to respondent in Chicago, was opened a customs officer at the airport, who found wooden table with marihuana concealed compartment. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent confirmed that it marihuana, and container were resealed. The next day, DEA Chicago police posed as delivery men delivered respondent, leaving hallway outside his apartment. stationed himself keep sight observed take into When other left secure warrant search apartment, maintained surveillance of Some 30 or 45 minutes after delivery, but before could return warrant, emerged apartment shipping immediately arrested taken station; there reopened inside seized. No had been obtained. Prior trial on charges possession controlled substances, Illinois state court granted respondent's motion suppress marihuana. Appellate Court affirmed, holding "controlled delivery" not made, so render unnecessary, because present when resealed airport officers out while Held: warrantless reopening following its reseizure did violate rights under Fourth Amendment. Pp. 769-773. (a) If an inspection does intrude upon legitimate expectation privacy, is no "search" subject Warrant Clause. protected privacy interest remains contraband once government lawfully (as here) have identified contents illegal. simple act resealing enable make operate revive restore invaded rights, subsequent within intendment rigors contingencies inescapable investigation illicit drug traffic "perfect" deliveries frequently impossible attain. likelihood may be removed items placed during gap depends all facts circumstances, including nature uses length break surveillance, setting which events occur. workable, objective standard limits risk intrusion interests has interruption whether substantial changed surveillance. (b) There here brief period surveilling officer. Thus, any P. 773. 100 Ill.App.3d 396, 55 Ill.Dec. 753, 426 N.E.2d 1078, reversed remanded. Richard A. Devine, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner. Patrick G. Reardon, Ill., respondent. Chief Justice BURGER opinion Court. 1 question presented required reopen sealed drugs discovered earlier lawful border search, seized supervision. 2 * Chicago. arrived O'Hare International Airport, Customs inspector approximately three feet diameter eight ten inches thick. Marijuana table. 3 informed these special Labek came later day. chemically tested substance contained table, confirming marijuana. 4 put van drove building. He met Police Lipsek. Posing men, Lipsek entered building announced they package Respondent lobby himself. In response Lipsek's comment about weight package, answered "wasn't heavy; he packaged himself, only table." App. 14. 5 At request, making pull enter apartment; saw leave walk end corridor, look window, then remained door constant 6 Between thirty forty-five reemerged station. There, marijuana 7 charged two counts substances. Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 561/2, &Par; 704(e) 705(e). trial, relying Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 99 2586, 61 235 (1979), United States Chadwick, 433 1, 97 2476, 53 538 (1977). 8 On appeal, Illinois, First Judicial District, affirmed. 1078 (1981). It relied primarily Sanders Chadwick container. Id., 399-401, Ill.Dec., 755-757, N.E.2d, 1080-1082. recognized would necessary if made held failed delivery." 9 delivery," iew court, requires maintain "dominion control" over times; control, court's view, can "absolutely sure" since initial search. 402, 757, 1082. Here, according container's reasons: (1) officers, thus knew "hearsay," ibid, 758, 1083, (2) thus, "there certainty same brought [respondent's] apartment." Ibid. Accordingly, violated 10 We certiorari, --- ----, 204, 74 164 (1982), we reverse. II 11 discovery common carriers transit1 presents law enforcement authorities2 opportunity identify prosecute person persons responsible movement contraband. To accomplish this, police, rather than simply seizing destroying it, so-called consignee, allowing continue journey destination contemplated parties. dealing taking asserting dominion container.3 12 typical pattern well described one court: 13 "Controlled apparently serve useful function enforcement. They most ordinarily occur carrier, usually airline, unexpectedly discovers what seems inspecting luggage learn identity owner, falls broken damaged piece luggage, carrier exercises privilege some suspicious circumstance caused oncern unwittingly transporting Frequently, such discovery, agents close reseal authorize deliver owner. owner appears searched second time known there." Bulgier, 618 F.2d 472, 476 (CA7), cert. denied, 449 843, 101 125, 66 51 (1980). 14 See also McConnell State, 595 P.2d 147 (Alaska 1979). 15 notified appropriate authorities. took steps arrange short delivering reseized container.4 claims, held, right Amendment "to . against unreasonable searches seizures. ." disagree. 16 protects expectations places. Walter States, 447 649, 663-665, 2395, 2405-2406, 65 410 (1980) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). threshold question, then, individual previously obvious diminishes respect authorities already contain drugs. rights. 17 This conclusion supported reasoning underlying "plain view" doctrine. plain view doctrine authorizes seizure illegal evidentiary visible whose access object prior justification probable cause suspect item connected criminal activity. Texas Brown, U.S.----, ---- n. 4, 1535, 1540 75 502 (plurality opinion); id., S.Ct., 1544 (POWELL, concurring); 1547 (STEVENS, concurring). grounded proposition are position observe first-hand, owner's lost; retain incidents title privacy. That rationale applies here; drugs,5 becomes like objects physically claim lost. Consequently, 18 However, often makes "absolute certainty" demanded Conducting undetected likely virtually perfectly their movements avoid detection able arrest reseize instant takes possession. Not infrequently, lose trailing, pursuit car vessel. 19 During possible will uses—for example, inside. this happen mere fact less 100% certain insufficient create 764-765, 13, 2593-2594, (1979). issue point control courts should recognize individual's proscription searches. 20 fashioning standard, must mindful principles. First, workable application rank file, trained officers. New York Belton, 453 454, 458-460, 2860, 2863-2864, 69 768 (1981); Ross, 456 798, 821, 102 2157, 2170, 72 572 (1982). Second, reasonable; absurd where minimal probability particular changed. Third, objective, dependent belief Terry 392 21-22, 88 1868, 1879-1880, 889 (1968). hold absent changed, authority. III 21 Applying principles, conclude unusual size specialized purpose, relatively combine substantially unlikely new 22 judgment case remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 23 ordered. 24 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 25 very simple: legal require warrant. answers announcing earch all, merely "reopening," ante, 772, protection I suppose grateful explicitly more breach general rule "searches conducted judicial process, without approval judge magistrate, per se Amendment—subject few specifically established well-delineated exceptions." 825, 2172, quoting Mincey Arizona, 437 385, 390, 98 2408, 2412, 57 290 (1978), Katz 389 347, 357, 507, 514, 576 (1967).1 hand, Court's rationale, even though limited specific pattern, nevertheless astounding implications. have, my knowledge, never physical opening examination anything "search." might permissible impermissible event "search."2 26 27 primary argument favor "no-search" stated briefly: 28 "The sealing rights." Ante, 771. 29 validity depends, however, means "protected interest." Clearly, aspect information beyond official scrutiny. Knotts, 460 1081, 1085, (1983) (no reasonable location automobile public roads). meant notion embodied Amendment, analysis essentially correct. knowingly voluntarily rendered vulnerable proper And soon revealed presence contraband, h d existence remain secret lost, regained. protect information. protects, own sometimes-forgotten words, "[t]he people persons, houses, papers, effects (emphasis added). As Brandeis matter dissent Olmstead 277 438, 478, 48 564, 572, L.Ed. 944 (1928), "conferred, Government, let alone —the comprehensive valued civilized men" "let alone" is, least, one's repose possessions disturbed. See, e.g., Rakas 439 128, 421, 58 387 (1978); District Court, 407 297, 326-327, 92 2125, 2141, 32 752 (1972) (Douglas, Alderman 394 165, 179-180, 89 961, 969-970, 176 (1969); Silverman 365 505, 511-512, 81 679, 682-683, 734 (1961); Taylor 286 52 466, 76 951 (1932); Boyd 116 616, 626-630, 524, 530-532, 746 (1886).3 case, integrity Admittedly, waived temporarily passed through inspection; Carroll 267 132, 280, 543 (1925), teaches us, Government cause, property entering country "national self protection." 154, 285. But however justified been, longer existed sent way, certainly exist 31 reduction secrecy incorrect, implicit analogy between loss amateur status inapt, quite clear number our recent cases.4 Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. York, 319, 2319, 60 920 reviewed "adult bookstore" local officials. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, speaking unanimous stated: suggestion [made] virtue display areas store open them, petitioner governmental intrusion, see 128 [99 387] accordingly needed. basis retail invites enter, consents wholesale seizures do conform guarantees. Lewis 385 206, 211, [87 424, 427, 312] (1966)." U.S., 329, 2325. 33 Cf. 660-662, 2403-2404, (WHITE, concurring judgment). Similarly, Michigan Tyler, 436 499, 1942, 56 486 that, although fire immediate aftermath "exigent circumstances" justifying entry both fire-fighters investigators, further intrusions place exigent circumstances suspend alone, extinguish validate legality independent searches, them non-searches. G.M. Leasing Corp. 429 338, 358-359, 619, 631-632, 50 530 34 today, breaks ground erodes principles Moreover, claiming "title possession" confers "privacy," 771, adopts curiously touch genius American system liberties. B 35 supports "reasoning 'plain view' doctrine." Ante,. fact, hurts helps recognizes indeed emphasizes security secrecy. 36 "We Payton 445 573, 586-587 [100 1371, 1380, 63 639] (1980), well-settled 'objects weapons involves invasion presumptively reasonable, assuming associate activity.' different situation presented, 'situated private premises otherwise available officer.' 587 1380], 354 [97 629]. cases indicate, provides grounds officer's 'Plain perhaps better understood, therefore, 'exception' clause, extension whatever 'access object' be." 1540, (opinion REHNQUIST, J.). 37 1546 judgment); Coolidge Hampshire, 403 443, 464-471, 91 2022, 2037-2040, 564 (1971) opinion). doctrine, displays incriminating evidence living room window5 (or allows pass inspection) enough itself evidence. More necessary, "more" reason breaching possessions. admits, justify "probable activity." Obviously, need protections apply question. 2, supra. C 38 does, course, highlight "specifically exceptions" Amendment's requirement. supra, 774. Such exceptions, least compelling stake, issue, conduct warrant.6 repeatedly "the must, whenever practicable, obtain advance procedure." 20, 1879, 2484, (1977); 315-318, 2135-2137; Chimel California, 395 752, 762, 2034, 2039, 685 Johnson 333 10, 15, 68 367, 369, (1948); 153, Indeed, each exceptions requirement arose context which, preserve safety see, supra (search incident arrest), prevent destruction evidence, Chambers Maroney, 399 42, 48-51, 90 1975, 1979-1981, 419 (1970) (automobile exception), allow based something 285 (border search). context, evident: potential suspects notice interest; delay inherent obtaining Coolidge, 467-468, 2038-2039 none conditions indispensible recognition exception process of, decided instead—for apparent hope vindication Court—to recharacterize novel another requirement, difficult square result mandate previous decisions. 39 agree entirely effective tool 769-770. passing inspection, seize there, use capture culprits behind technique, just effective, decidedly proper, culmination authorized valid Under am sure thinks vindicating determined awkward exertions. 40 Even correct "reopening" properly "search," still fashions principle effect, reaches case. holds long "substantial [a] surveillance." Of 'perfect' 'absolute certainty' impossible," 772. Nevertheless, justifications proferred led certainty." post, 782 After legally authorities, reattach unobserved change contents. By adopting vague intermediate serious consider "reasonable privacy." cannot how indistinct phrase likelihood" way "workable officers." 41 minutes. For good deal time, unobserved. convinced was, ex ante matter, searched, "reopened." event, fail how, light forward gloss consistent 42 dissent. 43 STEVENS, 44 remarkably similar controlling (1983): Was "virtual find seized? unique character balloon enclosing turn designed conceal drugs, combined circumstantial provided powerful support Bro n, believe test applied somewhat strict Constitution. therefore vacate remand proceedings.* Common inspect packages accept shipment, duty refrain carrying Pryba, 391, 399-400 (CADC 1974). Although sheer volume prevents systematic large percentage cargo care, 147, 148, 1979), discover variety circumstances. undoubted incoming goods port entry, Ramsey, 431 606, 616-619, 1972, 1978-1980, 617 (1977), every package. course selective inspections, inevitably transit. entrusted routine notify arrival scene confirm determine convert E.g., Edwards, 602 458 (CA1 consignee establish guilt importation recipient free offer unknown him; recipient's awareness issues finder. claimed house Amendment; goes Labek's absence somehow knowledge error: cooperating investigation, here, presumed shared all. Whiteley Warden, 401 560, 568, 1031, 1037, 306 (1971). also, 759, 2590, (1979); 358, 631, 50, 318, 2137, (1972); Camara Municipal 523, 528-529, 87 1727, 1731, 930 (1967); Jones 357 493, 78 1253, 1257, 514 (1958). why cause. Fortunately, though, reject implication reasoning. 771 ("No officials illegal.); 771-772 ("once lost."). generally Posner, Uncertain Protection Privacy Supreme 1979 Sup.Ct.Rev. 173 (discussing "seclusion" "secrecy" aspects Amendment); cf. Whalen Roe, 589, 599, nn. 24-25, 869, 876, 64 confusion part unintended consequence decision (1967), electronic eavesdropping involved suspect's area." Before Katz, focused too much "security" giving shrift aspect. recognizing importance secrecy, relevance security. wrote recently, "made invasions person's 'expectation[s] privacy,' those accompanied intrusions. Cases 509-512, 681-683, (1961), engage constitutionally area order informatio , constitute violation obtained means. progeny, eroded principle." 1087, (BRENNAN, 468, 25, (1932). "In assessing demands creation justifies type authority evidenced 533, 1733. sitting judge, actually heard virtual cases. But, unlike colleagues, province factual determinations. Hasting, 1974, 1985, National City Bank Banco para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 2591,

Category: 0