Document: 466 U.S. 380 104 S.Ct. 1852 80 L.Ed.2d 381 FLORIDAv.John Scott MEYERS, etc. No. 83-1279. Supreme Court of the United States April 23, 1984. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent was charged with sexual battery. At time his arrest, police officers searched automobile and seized several items. The vehicle then towed to Sunny's Wrecker, where it impounded in a locked, secure area. Approximately eight hours later, officer went compound and, without obtaining warrant, car for second time. Additional evidence seized. subsequent trial, court denied respondent's motion suppress during search, respondent convicted. 2 On appeal, Florida District Appeal Fourth reversed conviction, holding that even though conceded initial search valid, violated Amendment. 432 So.2d 97 (1983). concluded Chambers v. Maroney, 399 42, 90 1975, 26 419 (1970), which this held who have probable cause believe there is contraband inside an has been stopped on road may distinguishable, stating "in case element mobility removed because [respondent's] had impounded." So.2d, at 99. Court, 441 633, State's petition discretionary review, State filed present certiorari. We reverse.a1 3 either misunderstood or ignored our prior rulings respect constitutionality warrantless automobile. In Michigan Thomas, 458 259, 102 3079, 73 750 (1982), we upheld custody inventory already made. That ruling controls disposition case. expressly rejected argument accepted by case, noting conducted "after [the was] [was] custody" emphasizing "the justification conduct such does not vanish once immobilized." U.S., 261, S.Ct., 3081. Appeal's invalid clearly inconsistent Thomas Chambers. certiorari therefore granted, judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings opinion. 4 It so ordered. 5 Justice STEVENS, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 6 No judicial system perfect. appears made error. exercise its discretion, elected correct reasons were given denial review since record before us, cannot know what factors prompted Court's decision. This however, finds apparent error committed intermediate appellate court, acting summarily benefit briefs merits argument. 7 "This can only deal certain number cases any Term, some must attend process selection." Torres-Valencia States, 464 44, 385, 78 40 (1983) (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting). If corrected today federal action arguably would be proper supervisory powers over system. See Rule 17.1(a). Or if raised novel question law divergence opinion, assume jurisdiction purpose clarifying law. Rules 17.1(b) (c). reason state refused apply precedent hostility interpretation Constitution, see generally Cooper Aaron, 358 1, 1401, (1958), might obligation act vindicate supremacy consideration fact, majority principally relies, (1982) (per curiam), itself summary disposition. Clearly, area well-settled. being I no why leave task managing own docket.1 8 For three other should deny kind. First, pronouncements concerning confidence ability judges decide Amendment questions, Allen McCurry, 449 90, 101 411, 66 308 (1980); Stone Powell, 428 465, 96 3037, 49 1067 (1976), are hollow ring when found peering their shoulders after every misreading Second, perform primary responsibilities undermined enlarging self-appointed role as supervisors administration justice systems. Dispositions encourage prosecutors file increasing numbers petitions relatively routine cases, take upon ourselves incorrect will soon become busy unable discharge effectively, else forced make still another adjustment size staff order effectively. focus attention methods using scarce resources wisely rather than laying course bricks building bureaucracy. 9 Third, perhaps most fundamental, like pose disturbing questions conception role. Each considered individually, regarded welcome step forward never-ending war against crime. Such decisions receive widespread approbation, particularly members society victimized lawless conduct. But forget central written more specifically unique creation life-tenured judiciary, ensure rights firmly secured possible oppression Federal Governments. As wrote last Term: "I reviewing courts, sure persons seek fairly heard." Long, 463 1032, 1068, 103 3469, 3490, 77 1201 (emphasis original) (dissenting opinion). Yet recent history indicates that, least dispositions, primarily concerned vindicating less interested protector individual's constitutional rights.2 Since beginning October 1981 decided fashion 19 including one, accused convicted crimes. All warden prosecutor, all he successful reversal decision upholding claim right.3 am saying none these summarily. pattern results, particular fact two one-half Terms unwilling single criminal employ power uphold right, quite striking. well true times overused protect citizen government overreaching. Nevertheless, ever mindful prosecutor. Framers surely feared latter former. 10 respectfully dissent. a1 Even new issue reviewable prevails mooted; loses, governing law, Fla.Stat. § 924.07 (1981); Brown, 330 535, 536 (Fla.App.1976), prohibit from presenting review. circumstances, consistently below constitute[s] final under 28 U.S.C. 1257(3)." California Stewart, Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 497, 498, n. 71, 86 1602, 1639, 1640, 16 694 (1966). South Dakota Neville, 459 553, 558, 6, 916, 920 74 748 (1983); North Pharmacy Board Snyder's Stores, 414 156, 159-164, 94 407, 410-413, 38 379 (1973). also Cox Broadcasting Corp. Cohn, 420 469, 481, 95 1029, 1039, 43 328 (1975). contends petitioner conviction independent grounds, one (restricted cross-examination) contest." Brief Opposition 2. To extent lower court's unreviewable rests adequate reject it. highly questionable whether trial suppression motion. did cross-examination victim unduly restricted court. However, short discussion introduced observation "[s]ince briefly mention point." hardly clear indication provided basis conviction. 1040-1041, 3475, Moreover, provide ground reversal, empowered petitioner. state-court resting grounds "[w]e permitted render advisory same rendered views laws, could amount nothing opinion." Herb Pitcairn, 324 117, 126, 65 459, 463, 89 L.Ed. 789 (1945). possibility opinion merely advisory. solely ruling, admissibility critical hinges presented Thus, resolution affect regardless how rules remand. circumstances jurisdictional address us. does, manage inject legal significance into otherwise unremarkable through ground. Ante, 381-382, errors state-law regarding scope complaining witness. states "a conviction," ibid., relies "clear statement" rule 1040-1042, 3474, Long held: "[W]hen, rest interwoven adequacy independence face accept reasonable explanation way believed required do so. chooses rely precedents jurisdictions, need plain statement used guidance, themselves compel result reached." Id., 3476. effect, created presumption "primarily on" "interwoven with" id., 1042, 8, 3477, 8. Here, sense "rested today, citation implies courts sort duty indisputably extension occurs argument; cite Long. puzzling paragraph footnote sufficient support reliance trend, unfortunately, appear limited dispositions. 1069-1070, 3, (STEVENS, are: Rushen Spain, 114, 453, 267 curiam); Wainwright Goode, 78, 378, 187 Beheler, 1121, 3517, 1275 Illinois Batchelder, 1112, 3513, 1267 Maggio Fulford, 462 111, 2261, 76 794 Cardwell Taylor, 461 571, 2015, 333 Wyrick Fields, 394, 214 Anderson Harless, 4, 276, Hollywood Motor Car Co., 263, 3081, 754 Fletcher Weir, 455 603, 1309, 71 490 Sumner Mata, 591, 1303, 480 Torna, 586, 1300, 475 Hutto Davis, 454 370, 703, 70 556 Harris Rivera, 339, 460, 530 (1981) Leeke Timmerman, 83, 69, Jago Van Curen, 14, 31, 13 Duckworth Serrano, 18, curiam). Ed. Rogers, Ark. McCluskey, 966, 972-973, 3472-3473, 1273

Category: 0