Document: 433 U.S. 1 97 S.Ct. 2476 53 L.Ed.2d 538 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Joseph A. CHADWICK et al., Respondents. No. 75-1721. Argued April 26, 1977. Decided June 21, Syllabus When respondents arrived by train in Boston from San Diego, they were arrested at their waiting automobile federal narcotics agents, who had been alerted that possible drug traffickers. A double-locked footlocker, which transported on the and agents probable cause to believe contained narcotics, loaded trunk of automobile. Respondents, together with was admittedly under agents' exclusive control, then taken Federal Building Boston. An hour a half after arrests opened footlocker without respondents' consent or search warrant found large amounts marihuana it. Respondents subsequently indicted for possession intent distribute The District Court granted pretrial motion suppress obtained holding warrantless searches are per se unreasonable Fourth Amendment unless fall within some established exception requirement, not justified either "automobile exception" as incident lawful arrest; Appeals affirmed. Held: entitled protection Warrant Clause Amendment, evaluation neutral magistrate, before privacy interests contents invaded. Pp. 6-16. (a) fundamental purpose is safeguard individuals government invasions legitimate interests, simply those inside four walls home. 6-11. (b) By placing personal effects manifested an expectation would remain free public examination, no less than one locks doors his home against intruders, safeguards possessions this manner due Amendment's Clause; since there exigency calling immediate search, it Government conduct judicial provides. P. 11. (c) exception," person's expectations luggage substantially greater In connection, footlocker's mobility did justify dispensing warrant, because once seized railroad station safely transferred slightest danger its could have removed valid be obtained. 11-13. (d) Nor arrest, where remote time place arrest existed, having conducted more gained control long securely custody. 14-16. Cir., 532 F.2d 773, Raymond Randolph, Jr., Deputy Sol. Gen., Washington, D. C., petitioner. Martin G. Weinberg, Boston, Mass., respondents. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. We certiorari case decide whether required may open locked lawfully owners, when contains contraband. 2 (1) 3 On May 8, 1973, Amtrak officials Diego observed Gregory Machado Bridget Leary load brown onto bound Their suspicions aroused noticed unusually heavy size, leaking talcum power, substance often used mask odor hashish. Because matched profile spot traffickers, reported these circumstances turn relayed information, detailed descriptions counterparts 4 two days later, hand. Though officers them police dog trained detect marihuana. identified kept surveillance claimed suitcases baggage cart departure area. lifted cart, placed floor sat down 5 released near footlocker. Without alerting respondents, signaled presence controlled inside. Respondent Chadwick joined Leary, engaged attendant move outside Chadwick's Machado, Chadwick, 200-pound into car, while waited front seat. At point, car still engine started, all three. disclosed weapons, but keys apparently Machado. 6 Boston; followed As concedes, moment about 9 p. m., remained law enforcement times. Building, where, later testified, "there risk whatever defendants associates." App. 44. reason explosives other inherently dangerous items, evidence lose value once. Facilities readily available stored securely; contended any search. 7 arrests, luggage. They obtain consent; secure warrant. padlock regular lock. It unclear respondent means. Large footlocker.1 8 it, violation 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), conspiracy, 846. Before trial, moved Court, sought failure Chambers v. Maroney, 399 42, 90 1975, 26 419 (1970), arrests. Holding "(w)arrantless unreasonable, subject few carefully delineated limited exceptions," rejected both justifications. 393 F.Supp. 763, 771 (Mass.1975). court saw relationship between merely coincidental, held double-locked, part "the area (respondents) might gain weapon destructible evidence." Chimel California, 395 752, 89 2034, 2040, 23 685 (1969). divided First Circuit affirmed suppression properly custody also agreed But alone enough sustain premise arrest. 10 responded argument, suggested first appeal, movable personalty should if exists crime. Conceding such shares characteristics support searches, nevertheless concluded rule permitting yet "received sufficient recognition Supreme area, generally, us recognize fourth amendment requirement." 781 (1976). certiorari, 429 814, 54, 50 74 affirm. 11 (2) 12 again contends protects only traditionally home.2 Recalling colonial writs assistance, executed private dwellings, claims adopted primarily, exclusively, response unjustified intrusions homes authority general warrants. argues Framers intended disturb practice home, modify initial clause making supported unreasonable. 13 Drawing reading history, homes, offices, communications implicate lie core Amendment. Accordingly, contexts determination seizure reasonable has situations, contends, significant values stake, reasonableness intrusion depend solely criminal present. Where cause, thus regard "unreasonable." 14 do agree dwellings specifically designated locales. we noted before, "protects people, places," Katz United States, 389 347, 351, 88 507, 511, 19 576 (1967); particularly, people privacy. case, makes contribution protection. question, then, unreasonable.3 15 (3) 16 cannot doubted commands grew measure out colonists' experience assistance memories warrants formerly use England. These writs, issued executive rather authority, sweeping power customs King smuggled goods. pursuant carried residences. See generally Stanford Texas, 379 476, 481-485, 85 506, 509-511, 431 (1965); Marcus Search Warrant, 367 717, 724-729, 81 1708, 1712-1714, 1127 (1961); Frank Maryland, 359 360, 79 804, 877 (1959). 17 Although seizures deeply concerned colonists, foremost minds Framers, involving mistake conclude, therefore guard First, does terms distinguish searches. There strong historical connection draws distinctions among "persons, houses, papers, effects" safeguarding seizures. States Rabinowitz, 339 56, 68, 70 430, 445, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). 18 Moreover, little operate exclude occurring absence contemporary outcry places because, aside issue America. Thus, silence record tells Framers' attitude toward application footlocker.4 What know men focused wrongs day far outlast specific abuses gave birth. write clean slate. Our inquiry considering issues circumstances. Cooper 386 58, 87 788, 730 (1967). role play provides detached scrutiny reliable improper hurried judgment officer "engaged competitive enterprise ferreting crime." Johnson 333 10, 14, 68 367, 369, 92 436 (1948). Once begun, likely will exceed proper bounds done authorization "particularly describing searched persons things seized." Further, assures individual whose property executing officer, need limits Camara Municipal 387 523, 532, 1727, 1732, 930 20 Just protections offers erroneous governmental effective applied unconstitutional, variety settings.5 century ago, Field, speaking included reach printed matter traveling through mails States: "Letters sealed packages kind mail fully guarded examination inspection, except outward form weight, retained parties forwarding own domiciles. constitutional guaranty right papers extends closed wherever be. Whilst mail, can examined like upon similar oath affirmation, particularly thing seized, subjected one's household." Ex parte Jackson, 96 727, 733, 24 (1878). 22 reaffirmed Jackson Van Leeuwen, 397 249, 1029, 25 282 which, mailing, sender declared coins. Judicial E. g., (1967) (electronic interception conversation telephone booth); Coolidge New Hampshire, 403 443, 91 2022, 29 564 (1971) (automobile premises); Preston 376 364, 84 881, 777 (1964) custody); Jeffers, 342 48, 72 93, 59 (1951) (hotel room); M. Leasing Corp. 338, 619, 530 (1977) (office); Mancusi DeForte, 392 2120, 1154 (1968) (office). cases illustrate applicability beyond narrow Government. reflect settled principle, discussed earlier, interests,6 Wolf Colorado, 338 25, 27, 69 1359, 1361, 93 1782 (1949). important stake. examination. No Clause. being exigency, (4) contend brief contact argued rationale our demonstrates luggage; views analogous motor vehicles purposes. true that, here, automobiles "effects" standard reasonableness. recognized differences permit contexts. Carroll 267 132, 45 280, 543 (1925); supra, U.S., 366-367, S.Ct., 882-883; (1970). South Dakota Opperman, 428 3092, 3095, 49 1000 treatment based inherent mobility, obtaining impracticable. Nevertheless, sustained "warrantless . possibilities vehicle's destroyed remote, nonexistent." Cady Dombrowski, 413 433, 441-442, 2523, 2528, 37 706 (1973); accord, 3095; see Texas White, 423 67, 304, 46 209 (1975); supra ; 27 answer lies diminished surrounds automobile: 28 "One lesser vehicle function transportation seldom serves residence repository effects. travels thoroughfares occupants plain view." Cardwell Lewis, 417 583, 590, 2464, 2469, 41 325 (1974) (plurality opinion). Other factors reduce "All require registered operators licensed. localities enacted extensive codes regulating condition operated streets highways." 441, 2528. Automobiles periodically undergo official safety. 368, 3096. 30 diminish aspects apply Luggage view, border entry common carrier travel; nor inspections continuing basis. Unlike automobile, primary transportation, sum, 31 added obtained.7 detention validity contest, lost. With immobilized, undertake additional warrant.8 32 Finally, urges Constitution permits person public, so contraband recognizing insists contemporaneously soon thereafter practicable. reasons justifying custodial quite different. made, always seek weapon, concealed destroyed. To himself others, prevent loss evidence, arresting prompt, "search arrestee's 'within control' construing phrase mean he 2040. Terry Ohio, 1, 1868, 889 (1968). 33 Such made destroy evidence. potential dangers lurking make items "immediate control" requiring calculate probability weapons involved. Robinson, 414 218, 467, 38 427 supra. However, arrest," 883, exists. reduced immediately associated arrestee longer access seize arrest.9 34 Here custody; viewed incidental exigency. Even though issuance reasonably predictable, line must drawn. shown point comes dominion authority. invaded.10 35 Affirmed. 36 BRENNAN, concurring. I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE's thorough comment points my Brother BLACKMUN's dissent. wholeheartedly BLACKMUN "unfortunate" "sought vindicate extreme view Amendment." Post, 17. unfortunate, argument somehow "distract(ed)" meritorious arguments addressed convincingly Court's distressing Department Justice, mission protect liberties even appear seeking subvert dubious legal arguments. gratifying today unanimously rejects Government's position. 39 Second, Part II dissent suggests number alternative courses action violating Constitution, decision cited constitutionality courses, decisions Courts Appeals. 23, nn. 5. obvious legally driven away car1 "at arrests."2 40 BLACKMUN, whom REHNQUIST joins, dissenting. think somewhat unfortunate reversal primarily restrict "high privacy" areas. reject stated Parts opinion, am agreement. overbroad nature principal however, served distract task defining scope fails accept opportunity presents recent develop clear doctrine concerning consequences judgment. 42 * One establishes clothing explained (1973): 43 "A officer's how suspect necessarily quick ad hoc broken each instance analysis step disarm discover what particular situation fact suspect. Amendment; lawful, requires justification. hold full requirement 'reasonable' Id., 235, 477. 44 Accord, Gustafson Florida, 260, 488, 456 (1973). Under doctrine, contemporaneous indeed delayed hours remains Edwards, 415 800, 1234, (1974). second series concerns driving impounded and, (including compartments) 439-448, 2527-2531, 47-52, 1979-1981, reason, follow procedure inventorying showing cause. lines place. various kinds him: clothing, briefcase suitcase, packages, vehicle. instances very well leave sidewalk street go get stolen passer-by suspect's confederates. Rather "post guard" over property, surely take along person. 47 present held, office. Given propriety seizing subsequent fortiori permissible. 51-52, 1981. acknowledge, impounding searching intrusive case. until mere See, e. 805, 1238; 595-596, 2471-2472, 48 Robinson recognized, serious deprivation fairly regarded incidental. person, course, interest objects sure, allowing impoundment contents, incremental assessment magistrate. countervailing consideration routinely forthcoming vast majority situations conjunction doubt authorities formality much practical effect protecting values.1 sort underlies effects, impound explain why wallet "reduced caused arrest." Ante, n. 10. purses briefcases fit dichotomy.2 Perhaps future relatively immobile virtue size means propulsion. today's impact doctrines acknowledges, ante, 9, necessary object contents. establish routine container custody, security conservation. Cf. Law precluded conducting inventory "Trojan horse" exigent order facilitate apprehension confederates termination activity. Warden Hayden, 294, 298-300, 1642, 1645-1646, 782 51 Since preceding special most instances, abated itself, better, adopt clearcut approach simplify seriously derogating protected prohibition seizures.3 52 perverse result fortuitous outcome probably avoided unconstitutional delaying minutes back Probable seated Boston's Station signalled moment, commendably determine involvement others illegal scheme. short postponed just started drive away, office, including warrant.4 Alternatively, standing next containing control." And certainly occurred earlier it.5 54 many cases, small variations facts determinative outcome. Criminal involves drawing. way conduct, solicitous well-being Indeed, Judge Thomsen dissenting aspect Appeals' affirmed, course good procedure.6 trap unwary policeman detract activities detecting activity Marihuana suitcases. adequate justification suitcase suppressed Incriminating statements during suppressed, theory him tainted product petition question search; consequently, pass legality provides: "The persons, seizures, shall violated, Warrants issue, Oath searched, presented "(w) hether contraband." exclusionary rule. further undercut acknowledges interests. receive "maximum seizure" provided include oral electronic communication, "(i)n addition structures office hotel room ." Brief 30. apparent contention applies high areas, reconciled appropriate dwellings. noncriminal irrelevant, "that required, linked textually probable-cause concept." 370 5, 3097, This salutary functions context; determined bases. years. least Boyd 116 616, 524, 746 (1886), known "(i)t breaking doors, rummaging drawers, constitutes essence offence; invasion indefeasible security, liberty 630, 532. say translates precisely right. 350-351, 510-511, seized. Absolutely storage facilities available, (1976; (1973), susceptible theft vandals. Respondents' was, exposed interior substantial infringement possession, private. greatly coupled vehicle, unwilling indefinite immobilization, constituted interference rights owner. clearly Of justifications example, instrumentality, explosives, foolhardy transport house opening disarming weapon. Johnson, 467 639 (CA2 1972). 77 (1974), eliminated While exception, containers "standing (the) footlocker," "were it," post, me heavy, purposes search-incident-to-arrest possibility endanger safety assist escape, conceal destroy. hardly " (respondents') (they) takes defines serve none empowered question. Watson, 411, 414-424, 820, 823-828, 598 (1976) (warrant place). package Schleis, (CA8 1976), cert. pending, 76-5722; Battle, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 510 776 ex rel. Muhammad Mancusi, 432 1046 1970), denied, 402 911, 1391, (1971). 'My basic given force rule, regulate day-to-day ought expressed applicable context engaged. highly sophisticated set rules, qualified sorts ifs, ands, buts drawing subtle nuances hairline distinctions, heady stuff facile lawyers judges eagerly feed, 'literally impossible field.' LaFave, "Case-by-Case Adjudication" versus "Standardized Procedures": Dilemma, 1974 Sup.Ct.Rev. 127, 141 (footnotes omitted), quoting 153 114, 154, 471 1082, 1122 (1972) (dissenting opinion), rev'd, search" compartments, glove compartments trunks. 19. construed briefcases, suitcases, footlockers automobiles. Tramunti, 513 1087, 1104-1105 1975); Issod, 508 990, 993 (CA7 1974), 421 916, 95 1578, 783 Soriano, 497 147 (CA5 1974) (en banc), convictions summarily aff'd sub. nom. Aviles, 535 658 (1976), Nos. 76-5132 76-5143; Evans, 481 993-994 (CA9 1973). (1969), authorizes on-the-spot proper. Draper 358 307, 310-311, 329, 331, 327 handcuffed Eatherton, 519 603, 609-610 (CA1), 987, 304 Kaye, 492 744 (CA6 1974); Mehciz, 437 145 (CA9), 974 Searches approved close by, touching, French, 545 1021 1977) (suitcase "within arm's length" person); Frick, 490 666 1973), sub Peterson 831, 55, 57 (briefcase lying seat arrested). station, arrival train, especially respond call made. marijuana. acted wisely postponing JFK confirm 786 add increased likelihood attempt evade possibly endangering innocent bystanders.

Category: 0