Document: 460 U.S. 730 103 S.Ct. 1535 75 L.Ed.2d 502 TEXAS, Petitioner,v.Clifford James BROWN. No. 81-419. Argued Jan. 12, 1983. Decided April 19, Syllabus A Fort Worth, Tex., police officer stopped respondent's automobile at night a routine driver's license checkpoint, asked him for his license, shined flashlight into the car, and saw an opaque, green party balloon, knotted near tip, fall from hand to seat beside him. Based on experience in drug offense arrests, was aware that narcotics frequently were packaged such balloons, while respondent searching glove compartment shifted position obtain better view noticed small plastic vials, loose white powder, open bag of balloons compartment. After stated he had no possession complied with officer's request get out picked up which seemed contain powdery substance within its tied-off portion. Respondent then advised under arrest, on-the-scene inventory search car conducted, other items seized. At suppression hearing state-court trial unlawful heroin, department chemist testified heroin contained balloon seized by so packaged. Suppression evidence denied, convicted. The Texas Court Criminal Appeals reversed, holding should have been suppressed because it obtained violation Fourth Amendment. Rejecting State's contention so-called "plain view" doctrine justified seizure, court concluded Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 443, 91 2022, 29 564, apply, not only must be legitimately object, but also "immediately apparent" they before them, thus here know incriminating when balloon. Held: judgment is case remanded. ¶ 617 S.W.2d 196, reversed [Syllabus 731 intentionally omitted] C. Chris Marshall, petitioner. Allan K. Butcher, respondent. Justice REHNQUIST announced delivered opinion, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, WHITE, O'CONNOR joined. 1 Clifford Brown convicted District Tarrant County, state law. conviction, certain Amendment United States Constitution.1 196. That rejected state's seizure. Because apparent uncertainty concerning scope applicability this doctrine, we granted certiorari, --- ----, 102 2926, 73 1328, now reverse Appeals. 2 On summer evening June, 1979, Harold Maples, Worth force, assisted setting checkpoint East Allen Street city. Shortly midnight Maples driven Brown, who alone. Standing alongside window Brown's license. roughly same time, withdraw right pants pocket. Caught between two middle fingers about one half inch tip. let leg, reached across passenger opened 3 previous arrests offenses, like hand. When order interior He several quantities balloons. rummaging briefly through compartment, told possession. instructed stand rear. complied, and, following rear balloon; there sort portion 4 displayed fellow indicated "understood situation." officers arrest.2 They conducted discovering bags containing leafy large bottle milk sugar. These items, officers. Court, examined determined heroin. ordinary 5 Appeals, discussing issue, observed alone never enough justify warrantless seizure evidence." Pet. A-10, quoting 468, 2039, 564 (1971) (opinion Stewart, Douglas, BRENNAN MARSHALL, JJ.) It further "Officer 'incriminatory balloon.' " A-11 (emphasis supplied), DeLao State, 550 289, 291 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). petition rehearing, three judges dissented, stating their "[t]he issue turns whether officer, relying years practical knowledge commonly accepted, has probable cause seize plain view." A-15, 16. 6 generally invoked conjunction principles, as those relating warrants, cause, incident rehearse these understood principles amendment secures persons, houses, papers effects people against unreasonable searches seizures, requires existence warrant shall issue. Our cases hold procedure way preferred, although wide range diverse situations recognized flexible, common-sense exceptions requirement. See, e.g., Warden Hayden, 387 294, 87 1642, 18 782 (1967) (hot pursuit); Jeffers, 342 48, 51-52, 72 93, 95-96, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951) (exigent circumstances); Ross, 2157, 572 (1982) (automobile search); Chimel California, 395 752, 89 2034, 23 685 (1969); Robinson, 414 218, 94 467, 38 427 (1973); York Belton, 453 454, 101 2860, 69 768 (search person surrounding area arrest); Almeida-Sanchez States, 413 266, 93 2535, 37 596 (1973) border or "functional equivalent"); Zap 328 624, 630, 66 1277, 1280, 90 1477 (1946) (consent). We held permissible intrusions less severe than full-scale seizures without necessity warrant. Terry Ohio, supra, (stop frisk); Brignoni-Ponce, (seizure questioning); Delaware Prouse, 440 648, 99 1391, 660 (1979) (roadblock). One mentioned "exception requirement," U.S., S.Ct., relied upon case. 7 While conceding Officer clearly visible him, might avail itself doctrine. said: 8 "For immediately them. This 'immediately apparent' aspect central exception appellant. (Citation omitted). In then, Petn. A-11. 9 based conclusion primarily plurality opinion supra. plurality's view, permits private possessions where requirements are satisfied.3 First, lawfully make "initial intrusion" otherwise properly can particular area. Id., 465-468, 2037-2039. Second, discover "inadvertently," say, may "know advance location [certain] intend it," pretext. 470, 2040. Finally, observe crime, contraband, subject 466, 2038. lower courts applied discussion view," expressly adopted majority Court. contrary, formulation sharply criticized see, 506, 2058 (Black, J., dissenting); id., 516-521, 2063-2065 (WHITE, dissenting). binding precedent, considered four Members obviously point reference 10 observed, "It important keep mind that, vast cases, any will least moment seizure," simply "the normal concomitant search, legal illegal." 465, 2037. question property therefore turn legality intrusion enables them perceive physically question. plurality, approach characterized independent analytical perspective, description somewhat inaccurate. Payton York, 445 573, 586-587, 100 1371, 1380-81, 63 639 (1980), well-settled rule "objects weapons contraband found public place involves invasion privacy presumptively reasonable, assuming associate criminal activity." different situation presented, however, "situated premises access available seizing officer." 587, 1380, G.M. Leasing Corp. 429 338, 354, 97 619, 629, 50 530 (1977). As indicate, provides grounds item object some prior justification Amendment.4 "Plain perhaps understood, therefore, "exception" clause, extension whatever "access object" be. 11 principle grounded recognition owner's remaining interests merely ownership, see 515, 2062 Likewise, reflects fact requiring once first-hand perception stolen would "needless inconvenience," involve danger public. Ibid. said previously permissibility law enforcement practice judged balancing . promotion legitimate governmental interests." 654, 1396. light just outlined, our decisions come reflect if, engaged activity place, suspicious immediately. See Marron 275 192, 48 74, 231 (1927); Go-Bart Importing Co. 282 344, 358, 51 153, 158, 374 (1931); Lefkowitz, 285 452, 52 420, 423, 76 877 (1932); Harris 390 234, 236, 88 992, 993, 19 1067 (1968); Frazier Cupp, 394 731, 1420, 22 684 (1969). application Amendment's requirement reasonableness governing property. 12 Applying conclude automobile. did "question validity initial stop appellant's vehicle part check," agree. 654-655, 1396-1397, (1979). likewise beyond dispute Maples' action shining illuminate trenched secured latter Lee, 274 559, 563, 47 746, 748, 71 1202 (1927), "[The] use searchlight comparable marine glass field glass. prohibited Constitution." Numerous agreed artificial means darkened does constitute triggers protection.5 13 "changed [his] position" "bent down angle [he] could what inside" J.App., 16, irrelevant analysis. general peer number angles; reason precluded observing entirely citizen. There expectation privacy, Katz 389 361, 516 (Harlan, concurring); Smith Maryland, 442 735, 739-745, 2577, 2579-2583, 61 220 (1979), shielding viewed outside either inquisitive passersby diligent short, conduct enabled meaning 14 Thus presence first necessary invoke doctrine.6 But noted, felt ran aground nature officer. To apparently meant possessed certainty seizable items. Decisions since indicate phrase very likely unhappy choice words, taken imply unduly high degree incriminatory character 15 Colorado Bannister, 449 1, 3-4, 42 43-44, n. 4. occupants matched persons suspected theft auto parts similarly resembled ones reported stolen. facts supplied "probable cause," 4, 43, Plainly, language establishing "know" crime. Indeed, rule, set forth 1380 added). think statement Payton, case,7 consistent reaffirm here. 16 remarked, standard. "warrant man reasonable caution belief," Carroll 267 132, 162, 45 280, 288, 543 (1925), useful crime; demand showing belief correct more true false. "practical, nontechnical" probability involved all required. Brinegar 338 160, 176, 1302, 1311, 1879 (1949). Moreover, observation Cortez, 411, 418, 690, 695, 621 (1981), regarding "particularized suspicion," equally applicable requirement: 17 "The process deal hard certainties, probabilities. Long probabilities articulated such, formulated conclusions human behavior; jurors factfinders permitted do same—and collected seen weighed terms library analysis scholars, versed enforcement." With considerations believe illicit substance. aware, both participation discussions officers, tied manner used carry narcotics. testimony corroborated noted "common" packaging addition, able contents revealed suggestions activities substances. opaque fabric irrelevant: distinctive spoke volumes contents—particularly trained eye addition objects basis apparent," lawful, satisfied here, pretense. Whatever final disposition "inadvertence" element view,"8 bar circumstances meeting give suggestion roadblock pretext whereby uncovered course check licenses. Here, doubt cars halted Street—which "medium" traffic, 33—would paraphernalia, indication record anything generalized expectation. elsewhere 20 accordingly remanded proceedings. 21 ordered. concurring. joining REHNQUIST's I continue disagree views Justices 469, 2040, (1971), valid if viewing "inadvertent". Nor purport endorse opinions today. 24 POWELL, whom BLACKMUN joins, concurring judgment. 25 concur judgment, agree much Warrant Clause. join goes well exception. read appears accord significance Clause purpose dissent Rabinowitz, 339 56, 70 430, 653 (1950), Frankfurter wrote eloquently: 26 "One cannot wrench 'unreasonable searches' text context historic content [that] outlawed went define restricted authority even issued magistrate give, framers clarity gloss history 'unreasonable' unless authorizes it, barring absolute necessity." 70, 436. 27 sure, always consistent. reflected disagreement among extent defines standard my earliest opinions, 407 297, 92 2125, 32 752 (1972), cited Frankfurter's Rabinowitz emphasizing importance 316, 2136. Although say "absolute necessity,"1 "few carefully delineated." 318, 2137. continued expressed recently Arkansas Sanders, 753, 759, 2586, 2590, 235 repeated 456 798, 825, 2172, (1982); Mincey Arizona, 437 385, 390, 98 2408, 2412, 57 290 (1978) (unanimous decision); Vale Louisiana, 399 30, 34, 1969, 1971, 409 (1970); 347, 357, 507, 514, 576 (1967); Camara Municipal 523, 528-529, 1727, 1730-1731, 930 Jones 357 493, 499, 78 1253, 1257, 1514 (1958). 28 exception, addressed length (1971). today states "has Court." Ante, ----. decided, late date criticism articulation accepted over decade.2 seems unnecessary cast Its dispositive us. lawful. concedes discovery inadvertent lawful inspection front If shown, dicta suggest, clear existed made arrest carried similar Other cases. Even known common container carrying illegal narcotics, rely training draw inferences deductions elude untrained person. (1981). innocent uninflated, 30 Accordingly, established decisions. 31 STEVENS, MARSHALL join, apparent. reverses, though need justified. interpreted strictly 33 explanation is, incomplete. gives inadequate consideration closed warrant, concealed within. Chadwick, 433 2476, 53 538 (1977); (1979); 2169, (1982). Final determination denied motion complete understanding answer factual inquiry remains remand. 34 sometimes refer indiscriminately differences relevant protects citizen—the interest retaining maintaining personal privacy. threatens former, latter. matter timing, usually preceded converse often true. Significantly, protected present extent; example, locked suitcase necessarily compromise secrecy contents, deprive owner 35 An "in compromising Since possession, diminishing usual requirements. Thus, abandoned, neither implicated, nor Abel 362 217, 241, 80 683, 698, 668 (1960); cf. Lisk, 522 F.2d 228, 230 (7th Cir.1975). And publicly situated associated activity, outweighed risk disappear put intended obtained. (1975); (1980). easy understand apply occurs. 36 Court's difficult regularly arisen contexts link subsequent search. executing seizes item. sensitive inherent enlarge specific authorization, furnished exigency, equivalent rummage will. averted strict attention core view: entail significant additional time connect behavior. 465-466, 2037-2038, second familiar comes wants examine contents. recent years, spoken act, supra; values implicated whenever opened. case, (the balloon) antecedent challenge.1 regard, closely resembles Coolidge, supra.2 All demonstrate constitutionality automatically 13-14, 8, 2484-2485, 8; 761-762, 2591-2592. Separate inquiries necessary, taking account separate stake. movable implicate interests. Therefore, contains possessory yield society's making sure vanish during take temporarily. follow, spot. Once custody, destroyed. Some inconvenience entailed opening container, excuse duty go neutral magistrate. Johnson 333 10, 15, 68 367, 369, 436 (1948); McDonald 335 451, 455, 191, 193, 153 (1948). POWELL emphasizes, ante, 744-745, embodies government's historical commitment bear burden inconvenience. Exigent shown Constitution entrust individual's single 39 propriety For reasons REHNQUIST, invaded drugs. balloon's respondent, warrant.3 potential justifications. possible car's coupled pockets, provided located somewhere car—and so, decided until after Civil reviewed including 40 Alternatively, rare single-purpose containers "by support inferred outward appearance." 764-765, 13, 2593-2594, 13. Whereas paper almost infinite variety kind transport Viewing given itself. true, supports actually officer.4 41 reasoning leads me require exclusion entire virtual controlled substance.5 Neither fact-bound courts, instance. remand find waived 3. argues decision below rested adequate ground, lacks jurisdiction. Fox Film Muller, 296 207, 210, 56 183, 184, 158 (1935). untenable. rests squarely interpretation interpreting decision, Howard 599 597 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); 289 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Duncan 549 Nicholas 169 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). mention occurs summary contentions outset court's opinion. relies principally proposition Howard, State argued translucent medicine jar claim, arguments "cannot squared Supreme doctrine." S.W.2d, 602. Thomas "[f]ollowing teachings Hampshire." Motion Rehearing elaborated original Similarly, Duncan, reliance theory, citing law, Like area, Coolidge. us arrested. stated, appellant failed produce license." suggest arrested failure instead car. transcript hearing, indicates rather formally J.App. 28-31. face indications, decline interpret above-quoted clause Appeals' evidencing occurred Rather, address argument (1982), absence findings which, consider decision. remarked 2039. appeared impose limitation phrase, rephrasing conclusion, discussed below, occupy affording acting pursuant 392 1868, 889 (1968). item, left 1380. distinguish mere view. pp. 740, infra; (1967), former limitations information result sight suspicion activity. turn, levels may, E.g., Chesher, 678 1353, 1356-1357, (CA9 1982); Ocampo, 650 421, (CA2 1981); Pugh, 566 626, 627, (CA8 1977), cert. 435 1010, 1885, 393 (1978); Coplen, 541 211 1976), 1073, 810, 791 Lara, 517 209 (CA5 1975); Johnson, 506 674 1974), 421 917, 95 1579, 43 784 Booker, 461 990, 992 (CA6 1972); Hanahan, 649 (CA7 1971); People Waits, 196 Colo. 35, 580 P.2d 391 (Colo.1978); Redd 240 Ga. 243 S.E.2d (Ga.1978); Chattley, A.2d 472 (Me.1978); Vohnoutka, 292 N.W.2d 756 (Minn.1980); Dick 1265 (Okl.Cr.1979); Miller, Or.App. 407, 608 595 (Or.App.1980); Albo 379 So.2d 648 (Fla.1980). required warrantless, physical automobile, proper, satisfied. whether, circumstances, sufficient King, 191 650, 655 (Iowa Santana, 485 365, 369-370 1973), 415 931, 1444, 490 (1974); Bradshaw, 1097, 1101, (CA4 419 895, 173, 139 North Superior Cal.3d 301, 104 Cal.Rptr. 833, 1305, 1308 (Cal.1972). vehicle. 760-761, 2591-2592, Martinez-Fuerte, 428 543, 561-562, 3074, 3084-3085, 49 1116 (1976); 279, 2542, (POWELL, concurring). 1356-1357 Irizarry, 673 554, 558-560 (CA1 Tolerton, 669 652, 653-655 (CA10), 2020, 473 Antill, 615 (CA5) (per curiam ), u.s. 866, 200, 85 (1980); Duckett, 583 1309, 1313-1314 1978); Williams, 523 64, 66-67 1975), 423 1090, 884, Truitt, 521 1174, 1175-1178 Pacelli, 470 67, 70-72 1972), 410 983, 1501, 178 Drew, 451 230, 232-234 1971). defending challenge nevertheless elaborate distinction clarify still infra, thought confront Hampshire's attempts immobilized 464-473, 2037-2042, container's interior, 458-464, 2033-2037. Arguably, justification. course, courts. Conversely, mean sense it. elaboration demands reach without, entering home destroying valuable container. Taylor 286 5, 951 (1932). Sometimes greater identity visible. powder realizing virtually context. evaluating person's infringed, "virtual certainty" meaningful indicator visibility.

Category: 0