Document: 541 U.S. 615 THORNTONv.UNITED STATES. No. 03-5165. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 31, 2004. Decided May 24, Before Officer Nichols could pull over petitioner, petitioner parked and got out his car. then parked, accosted arrested him after finding drugs in pocket. Incident to the arrest, searched petitioner's car found a handgun under driver's seat. Petitioner was charged with federal drug firearms violations. In denying motion suppress firearm as fruit an unconstitutional search, District found, inter alia, automobile search valid New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, which this held that, when police officer makes lawful custodial arrest automobile's occupant, Fourth Amendment allows vehicle's passenger compartment contemporaneous incident id., at 460. appealed conviction, arguing that Belton limited situations where initiated contact arrestee while he still The Circuit affirmed. Held: governs even does not make until person has left vehicle. placed no reliance on fact ordered occupants vehicle, or them they remained within it. And here, there is simply basis conclude span area generally arrestee's immediate control determined by whether exited vehicle officer's direction, all relevant aspects, suspect who next presents identical concerns regarding safety evidence destruction one inside. Under proposed "contact initiation" rule, officers decide it may be safer more effective conceal their presence would unable event potentially compromising placing incriminating risk concealment destruction. require such gamble. car's both "occupant[s]" "recent occupant[s]." Ibid. While status occupant" turn temporal spatial relationship time certainly inside outside first him. Although contraband likely accessible occupant," need for clear readily understood depending differing estimates what items were reach any particular moment, justifies sort generalization enunciated. have determine actually confronted signaled confrontation car, unaware of, reasons unrelated to, presence. Such rule inherently subjective highly specific, precisely ad hoc determinations part field reviewing courts sought avoid. Pp. 619-624. 325 F. 3d 189, REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered opinion except footnote 4. KENNEDY, THOMAS, BREYER, JJ., joined full, O'CONNOR, but filed concurring part, post, p. 624. SCALIA, judgment, GINSBURG, joined, 625. STEVENS, dissenting opinion, SOUTER, 633. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT. Frank W. Dunham, Jr., argued cause petitioner. With briefs Walter B. Dalton, Frances H. Pratt, Kenneth P. Troccoli. Gregory G. Garre brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Wray, Deputy Dreeben.* CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST 1 454 (1981), we made occupant automobile, arrest. We granted certiorari twice before Belton's applies well latter stepped did merits either those two cases. Arizona Gant, 540 963 (2003) (vacating remanding reconsideration light State Dean, 206 Ariz. 158, 76 429 (en banc)); Florida Thomas, 532 774 (2001) (dismissing lack jurisdiction). now question 2 Deion Norfolk, Virginia, Police Department, uniform driving unmarked noticed Marcus Thornton slowed down so avoid suspected knew some reason want His suspicions aroused, pulled off onto side street passed After him, ran check license tags, revealed tags had been issued 1982 Chevy two-door Lincoln Town Car, model driving. opportunity over, drove into parking lot, saw leave behind He patrol asked license. also told match 3 appeared nervous. began rambling licking lips; sweating. Concerned safety, if narcotics weapons said no. pat down, agreed. felt bulge front pocket again illegal This stated did, reached individual bags, containing three bags marijuana other large amount crack cocaine. handcuffed informed back seat BryCo 9-millimeter 4 A grand jury possession intent distribute cocaine base, 84 Stat. 1260, 21 § 841(a)(1), having previously convicted crime punishable term imprisonment exceeding year, 18 922(g)(1), furtherance trafficking crime, 924(c)(1). suppress, search. hearing, denied holding supra, alternatively conducted inventory automobile. counts; sentenced 180 months' 8 years supervised release. 5 appealed, challenging only Court's denial suppression motion. States Appeals 189 (2003). It "the historical rationales doctrine—`the disarm order take custody' `the preserve later use trial,'" 195 (quoting Knowles Iowa, 525 113, 116 (1998)), solely suspects vehicles approached police. Noting conceded "close proximity, temporally spatially," court concluded control, thus Nichols' reasonable Belton.1 3d, 196. certiorari, 980 (2003), affirm. 6 overtook speeding Thruway its driver over. S., 455. Suspecting possessed marijuana, directed get unlawful possession. Id., 454-455. considered constitutionally permissible scope these circumstances lay workable governing situation. 7 referred Chimel California, 395 752 (1969), case home, described immediately surrounding 457 (citing Chimel, 763). justified remove weapon might seek resist escape, prevent evidence. 457. easily stated, principle proved difficult apply specific pointed Robinson, 414 218 (1973), dealing person, rejected suggestion "`there must litigated each issue present supporting authority'" conduct 459 235). Similarly, because "courts ha[d] definition arrestee' arguably include[d] interior [wa]s recent 460, set forth citizens alike. therefore "when policeman may, automobile." (footnote omitted). holding, Nor do find factor persuasive distinguishing current situation, bears logical rationale. There recognized much, albeit dicta, Michigan Long, 463 1032 (1983), observed swerve ditch. met rear indication "[i]t . [respondent] Belton." 1035-1036, n. 1. 9 An suspect's arrested. See Knowles, 117-118. fluid "[t]he danger flows from attendant stress, uncertainty," 234-235, (emphasis added). Washington Chrisman, 455 1, (1982) ("Every presumed arresting officer"). stress less merely contact, nor attempt lunge destroy case, faces volatile little sense different rules is, bottom, same 10 Certainly judgment should free make. But strictures 11 argues, however, will fail provide "bright-line" than "occupants." Brief 29-34. Indeed, respondent search; standing highway. event, search,2 moment 12 To sure, occupant." unlikely gun once general inaccessible Belton. enunciated.3 Once determines probable allow ensure searching entire compartment. 13 Rather clarifying constitutional limits obfuscate them. approaching just alighted determination 459-460. Experience shown impracticable, refuse adopt So long arrest.4 14 15 ordered. Notes: * ofamici curiae urging reversal American Civil Liberties Union et al. Tracey Maclin, Steven R. Shapiro, Lisa Kemler. affirmance Terry Goddard, Arizona, Mary O'Grady, General, Randall M. Howe, Chief Counsel, Kathleen Sweeney Eric J. Olsson, Attorneys respective follows: William Pryor, Alabama, Jane Brady Delaware, Charles Crist, Florida, Mark Bennett Hawaii, Madigan Illinois, Steve Carter Indiana, Phill Kline Kansas, Joseph Curran, Maryland, Michael A. Cox Michigan, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Missouri, Mike McGrath Montana, Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, Henry D. McMaster South Carolina, Greg Abbott Texas, L. Shurtleff Utah, Sorrell Vermont, Jerry Kilgore Patrick Crank Wyoming. Shashank Upadhye, pro se, amicus curiae. alternative 196 argues reject limit ofBelton occupant[s]" are "reaching distance" 35-36. decline address argument, see Rule 14.1(a), addressed Appeals, Peralta Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 80, 86 (1988). note meet own standard apparently Nichols. (CA4 2003). STEVENS contends thatBelton's bright-line "is needed cases pedestrian, [v. (1969),] itself provides guidance necessary." Post, 636 (dissenting opinion). STEVENS' approach, reaching distance object Chimel. exactly type unworkable fact-specific inquiry "`the includes Whatever SCALIA's wrong never thatBelton "to believe vehicle," 632, below consider reasoning. Pennsylvania Dept. Corrections Yeskey, 524 206, 212-213 (1998) ("`Where issues neither raised ordinarily them'" Adickes Kress & Co., 398 144, 147, (1970))). presented—"[w]hether announced confined initiate Pet. Cert.—does fairly encompass analysis. 14.1(a) ("Only questions petition, included therein, Court"). respond approach. Yee Escondido, 503 519, 536 (1992). circumstances, imprudent overrule, intents purposes, our established precedent, authority common occurrence searches pursuant time. 16 part. 17 I join opinion. extension write separately express my dissatisfaction state law area. As SCALIA forcefully 627-629 (opinion judgment), lower decisions seem treat ability entitlement rather exception twin (1969). That erosion direct consequence shaky foundation. approach proposes appears built firmer ground, am reluctant context Government chance speak merit. whom GINSBURG joins, judgment. 19 752, 762-763 means destroy. accordingly "`immediate control'"—i. e., grab evidentiary ite[m]." 763. 460 arrests occupants, "in generally, inevitably," whole every case. 20 When in, anywhere near, Rather, secured squad nevertheless "grab ite[m]" remote extreme. effort doctrine stretches beyond breaking point, cannot why protect None ultimately persuades me. 22 despite being escaped retrieved vehicle—a theory calls mind Judge Goldberg's reference mythical "possessed skill Houdini strength Hercules." Frick, 490 2d 666, 673 (CA5 1973) part). States, endeavoring ground seemingly speculative fear reality, points total seven instances past attacked formerly arrestees. 38-39, 12. These not, justify claimed. Three involved arrestees concealed person. Sanders, 994 200, 210, 60 1993) (two instances); Justice, Federal Bureau Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports: Law Enforcement Officers Killed Assaulted 49 (2001). seized officer. (1998). Authority question; course seizure gun. Only retrieve somewhere else: Plakas Drinski, 1143, 1144-1146 (CA7 1994), jumped through forest house, (still handcuffs) struck wrist fireplace poker shot dead. 23 Of course, document measures obvious risks. here far obvious, frequently recurring roadside arrests, Government's inability come up single example retrieval arms undermines claims. escape recover surely greater residence room—a insufficient 24 second defense since (when near car), penalized taken sensible precaution securing first. put it: "`[I]t prescribe test entirely odds safe procedures.'" Mitchell, 82 146, 152 1996) Karlin, 852 968, 971 1988)); Wesley, 293 541, 548-549 (CADC 2002). weakness argument assumes way another, place. conducting right; exception—justified necessity—to otherwise render unlawful. If "sensible procedures" cars, handcuff suspects, leaves unrestrained nearby manufacture argue unreasonable dangerous conditions justifying existed virtue failure follow procedures. 25 third though posed reasonable, benefits upholding small minority facts, reasonable. validity rests accuracy claim control. By States' admission, practice restraining scene occupied prevalent setting `largely dead letter.'" 36-37 548). Reported involving precise factual scenario—a motorist takes place—are legion. See, e. g., Doward, 41 789, 791 (CA1 1994); White, 871 41, 44 (CA6 1989); 152; Snook, 88 605, 606 (CA8 1996); McLaughlin, 170 889, 890 (CA9 1999); Humphrey, 208 1190, 1202 (CA10 2000); 544; LaFave, Search Seizure 7.1(c), pp. 448-449, 79 (3d ed. 1996 Supp. 2004) cases). Some uphold carrying already scene. 890-891 (upholding five minutes elapsed left). 26 popularity hard fathom. entitles upon eliminate danger, rational measures? Cf. Moskovitz, Reason: Empirical Reexamination 2002 Wis. Rev. 657, 665-666 training materials). ever true today. judge "[I]n clarity, abandoned moorings floated place approves purely exploratory during definite objective allowed rummage around find." 894 (Trott, concurring). agree assessment. II 27 justifiable, item contain evidence-gathering without antecedent. For example, Rabinowitz, 339 56 (1950), upheld business there. restrict officers' [the] ite[m]," 763, evidence.1 relied interest gathering 60-64; Harris 331 145, 151-152 (1947); Marron 275 192, 199 (1927); Agnello 269 20, 30 (1925); cf. Weeks 232 383, 392 (1914). 28 Numerous earlier authorities support referring related mention preventing Wilson, 163 338, 340, 343 (CC SDNY 1908); Smith Jerome, 47 Misc. 22, 23-24, 93 N. Y. 202, 202-203 (Sup. Ct. 1905); State, 117 346-347, 1107, 1110 (1903); Ex parte Hurn, 92 Ala. 102, 112, So. 515, 519-520 (1891); Thatcher Weeks, Me. 547, 548-549, 599, 599-600 (1887); Wharton, Criminal Procedure 97, 136-137 (J. Kerr 10th 1918); Bishop, 211, 127 (2d 1872); Spalding Preston, Vt. 9, (1848) (seizure authority); Queen Frost, Car. 129, 131-134 (1839) (same); King Kinsey, 447 (1836) O'Donnell, 138 (1835) Barnett, 600, 601 (1829) (same). Bishop's 1872 articulation typical: 29 "The man criminal charge nature charge; and, finds about prisoner's possession, goods moneys connected supposed fruits, instruments committed, directly furnishing relating transaction, same, hold disposed direct." 127. leading start consistently narrower frustrating Sibron York, 40, 67 (1968); Preston 376 364, 367 (1964). 31 nothing irrational broader perpetrator lawfully prior distinguishes society large, rummaging. Moreover, illogical assume most apprehended. 32 Nevertheless, Chimel's focus support. Holker Hennessey, 141 Mo. 527, 539-540, 42 1090, 1093 (1897); Dillon O'Brien, 245, 250 (Exch. Div. Ir. 1887); Reifsnyder Lee, Iowa 101, 103 (1876); Welch, Essay Office Constable (1758).2 limitation implicit. carried end, reconcile influential Entick Carrington, How. St. Tr. 1029, 1031, 1063-1074 (C. 1765) (disapproving plaintiff's private papers warrant, arrest). Dillon, 250-251 (distinguishing Entick); Warden, Md. Penitentiary Hayden, 387 294, 303-304 (1967). 33 short, Rabinowitz plausible accounts Constitution requires, departing settled law. going continue stare decisis grounds, least honest doing so. reasonably explained mere application return Chimel—limited, motor vehicles, category "effects" give rise reduced expectation privacy, Wyoming Houghton, 526 295, 303 (1999), heightened enforcement needs, 304; 73 (Frankfurter, dissenting). 34 Recasting terms important practical consequence. 218, 235 depend actual case; rather, alone stands contrast sufficient, noting "not whatever turned up" reflected belief found. 62-63; Smith, Misc., 203 ("This right duty extend, articles furnish against accused"); evidence); (officer "consider charge" searching). sense: imminent issue, fine judgments heat moment. interests over-breadth compelling. wide variety offenses; many cases, Atwater Lago Vista, 318, 323-324 (2001); 118 35 offense. further similar vicinity affirm decision ground.3 characterize office defendant's "immediate control," 61, used acquired inChimel. Compare officer-safety rationale pedigree. Closson Morrison, 482, 484-485 (1867); Leigh Cole, 329, 332 (Oxford Cir. 1853); Constable, 17. asserts goes presented, citing 14.1(a)Ante, 624, Rule, constrain presented Vance Terrazas, 444 252, 259, (1980); Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation Hood, ante, 443, necessary intelligent resolution Ohio Robinette, 519 33, 38 (1996). SOUTER dissenting. Prior widespread conflict among "whether, longer it." 459. answering question, expanded respects. permitted,1 authorized open closed containers compartment.2 basic expansions rested concern overriding desire hew straightforward applied, predictably enforced." 459.3 decided, persuaded clarity certainty adequately modest permit examine traffic violation. took view respect absent cause, thought "it palpably briefcase luggage inspection officer." Robbins 420, 451-452 (1981) opinion).4 remain convinced aspect unnecessary erroneous. Whether agrees disagrees view, supports expansion blurs lines. Neither modification fair reading itself, conflicting gave grant concerned situation noted discovered reaching-distance "no emerged cases." 458-459. cited demonstrate disarray pedestrian vicinity, distance, her car.5 petition writ certiorari6 case.7 Thus, demonstrably narrow circumstance occasioned seated official approached. Normally, occurred, jeopardy, what, any, conduct. provided unavailable crafted necessary. genuine justification extending cover uncovering valuable goal citizen's protected privacy well-defined limiting pedestrian. protection house. Unwilling confine class designed address, extends supplying future swollen rule. "[s]o `recent occupant' here." Ante, 623-624. how recent, close close, perhaps record clear." cautioned "[w]hen know protection, can authority." Without principle, today's contribute "a massive broadening exception," Robbins, 452 (STEVENS, dissenting), Accordingly, respectfully dissent. gleaned relatively compass inevitably, ite[m].'"Belton, "In establish require[d]," read "Chimel's generalization." "that Because reasoned, followed contents compartment, arrestee, reach. container closed, container, infringement have."Id., 460-461 extolled virtues "`[a] single, familiar guide officers, expertise reflect balance social confront.'"Id., 458 Dunaway 442 213-214 (1979)). InRobbins, companion opaque trunk warrantless 428 (plurality contained applied sustain expressed authorizing "provide predicate neutral magistrate authorize issuing warrant." SeeUnited Benson, 631 1336, 1337 1980) (defendant "while sitting car"); 1309, 1311-1312 (occupants approached); Rigales, 630 365 apprehended stop); Dixon, 558 919, 922 1977) ("[T]he agents appellant 668, 669 "at lot adjacent apartment building"; attache lying "approximately feet defendant" "readily accessible" him); Hinkel Anchorage, 618 1069 (Alaska following collision); Ulesky 379 121, 123 (Fla. App. 1979) stop). Cert. inNew O. T. 1980, 80-328, 7. Agostino, 608 1035, 1036 (suspect notified presence); Neumann, 585 355, 356 1978) stopped car); Foster, 584 997, 999-1000 (suspects officer); Hunter, 299 29, 261 E. 192 (1980) Wilkens, 364 934, 936 (La. automobile).

Category: 0