Document: 379 U.S. 89 85 S.Ct. 223 13 L.Ed.2d 142 William BECK, Petitioner,v.STATE OF OHIO. No. 18. Argued Oct. 15, 1964. Decided Nov. 23, James R. Willis, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner. T. McKnight, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 On afternoon November 10, 1961, petitioner, Beck, was driving his automobile in vicinity East 115th Street and Beulah Avenue Ohio. Cleveland police officers accosted him, identified themselves, ordered him to pull over curb. The possessed neither an arrest warrant nor a search warrant. Placing under arrest, they searched car but found nothing interest. They then took nearby station where person envelope containing number clearing house slips 'beneath sock leg.' petitioner subsequently charged Municipal Court with possession violation state criminal statute.1 He filed motion suppress as evidence question, upon ground that had obtained them by means unreasonable seizure Fourth Fourteenth Amendments. After hearing overruled, were admitted evidence, convicted. His conviction affirmed Ohio Appeals, ultimately Supreme two judges dissenting. 175 St. 73, 191 N.E.2d 825. We granted certiorari consider petitioner's claim that, rule Mapp v. 367 643, 81 1684, 6 1081, wrongly against because been seized 376 905, 84 664, 11 604. 2 Although did not obtain before arresting searching person, nonetheless constitutionally valid incident lawful arrest. And it is basis decision has supported respondent here. See Draper United States, 358 307, 79 329, 3 327; Ker California, 374 83 1623, 10 726. There are limits permissible scope warrantless we proceed on premise if itself lawful, those exceeded Harris 331 145, 67 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399; States Rabinowitz, 339 56, 70 430, 94 653; cf. Preston 364, 881, 777. constitutional validity this case, then, must depend Whether depends turn whether, at moment made, probable cause make whether facts circumstances within their knowledge which reasonably trustworthy information sufficient prudent man believing committed or committing offense. Brinegar 338 160, 175—176, 69 1302, 1310—1311, 93 1879; Henry 361 98, 102, 80 168, 171, 4 134. 'The practical, nontechnical conception affording best compromise accommodating * often opposing interests. Requiring more would unduly hamper law enforcement. To allow less be leave law-abiding citizens mercy officers' whim caprice.' supra, 176, 1311. In turning question record case us can support finding may well repeat what said Clark, speaking eight members Court, California: 5 'While does sit nisi prius appraise contradictory factual questions, will, necessary determination rights, independent examination facts, findings, so determine reasonableness fundamental—i.e., constitutional—criteria established have respected. thereby precluded from developing workable rules governing arrests, searches seizures meet 'the practical demands effective investigation enforcement' provided do violate proscription concomitant command inadmissible one who standing complain. Jones 362 257, 725, 697 (1960). Such standard implies no derogation uniformity applying federal guarantees only recognition conditions vary just investigative enforcement techniques.' 34, 1630. trial court made findings fact case. judge simply conclusory statement: 'A incidental arrest.' Appeals merely 'no error prejudicial appellant.' Judge Zimmerman's contained narrative recital accurately excerpted dissenting opinions today. But, putting aside fairly called court,2 such appellate hardly equivalent trier facts. any event, after giving full flexibility demanded 'a techniques,' hold cannot squared 7 meager, consisting testimony officers, given suppress. As officer's own shows than officer 'had picture knew he looked like,' connection scheme chance.'3 Beyond testified 'information' 'heard reports,' 'someone specifically relate information,' 'knew was.' nowhere indication 'reports' received, or, beyond set out above, source come. when left house, 'I mind looking (the petitioner) area Beulah, stopping I see stop area.' But indicate informer could time place. Cf. 327. show saw 'stop' arrested saw, heard, smelled, otherwise perceived anything else give belief acted acting unlawfully.4 8 No upheld scant presents. relies showed named special employee narcotics agents numerous occasions reliable told defendant, whom described minutely, taken up residence stated address selling addicts Denver. further defendant going Chicago returning Denver trains Chicago, event complete contrast, contain single objective engaged activity him. 9 An without bypasses safeguards predetermination cause, substitutes instead far procedure after-the-event justification search, too likely subtly influenced familiar shortcomings hindsight judgment. 'Whether requirements reliability particularity act stringent absent, surely obtained. Otherwise, principal incentive now existing procurement warrants destroyed.' Wong Sun 371 471, 479—480, 407, 413, 441. Yet even cases obtained, held Constitution greater showing present record. Aguilar Texas, 378 108, 1509, 12 723; Giordenello 357 480, 78 1245, 1503;5 Nathanson 290 41, 54 11, 159.6 When challenged, function available 'warrant reasonable caution belief' offense committed. Carroll 267 132, 162, 45 280, 288, 543. If informed acted, properly discharge function. All like previous arrests convictions violations law. someone (he say who) something what) about physical appearance either entirely irrelevant issue cause. 172—174, 1309—1310. both these constituted anyone will. It possible incumbent prosecution considerably specificity shown actually said, why thought credible. assume good faith 'good part enough.' subjective alone test, protections Amendment evaporate, people 'secure persons, houses, papers, effects,' discretion police. Reversed. CLARK, BLACK joins, 14 74, 825, 827, 'determined' following case: 15 reason believe regularly carrying chance involving clearing-house slips. previously convicted score. Information certain locality pursuing unlawful activities. locality, predicted, automobile. Police stopped it, result. Defendant station, clothing examined, resulting discovery illegal slips, formed charge subsequent conviction.' 16 These Ohio's highest based its 17 syllabus rule, Rule VI, peculiar State majority speaks, promulgated 1858, vii, provides: 18 points decided each shall stated, writing, assigned deliver confined law, arising determined *' (Emphasis supplied.) 19 my late Brother revered memory, Burton Perkins Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 437, 442, n. 3, 72 417, 96 485 (1952), '(a) read light brought accompanying rather itself.' cases. Williamson Heater Co. Radich, 128 124, 190 N.E. 403 (1934); Bright, 109 14, 19—20, 141 689, 690 (1923); re Poage, 87 72, 82—83, 100 125, 127—128 (1912). 20 ignores entirely. Where detailed earnest consideration determines supportable, let stand. would, course, same respect district courts approved appeals. will continually disputing minutiae every Especially true disputes sua sponte where, here, attack leveled them. 21 Believing Court's fully conclusion existed thereto, affirm. 22 HARLAN, 23 Zimmerman fact,1 'Information automobile.' 827. regard crucial point informant information, occurrence sufficiently informant's provide function, therefore, State's adequately supportable. doing essential appropriate standards review. 24 Generally 'our inquiry clearly limited study undisputed portions record.' Thomas Arizona, 356 390, 402, 885, 892, 863. '(T)here agreement conflict led contested confession (or arrest) concern. comes here authoritatively resolved adjudication.' Watts Indiana, 49, 51—52, 1347, 1348—1349, 1801. also, Gallegos Nebraska, 55, 60—61, 141, 144—145, 86; Haley 332 596, 597—598, 68 302, 303, 92 224. equally clear asserted rights free draw inferences due weight conclusions court, being conclusively bound them, 726; Spano New York, 360 315, 1202, 1265. 25 A distinction between difficult draw, guiding principle should doubt demeanor credibility witnesses, contemporaneous understandings parties, play resolution, extremely slow upset court's inferential findings. impetus our exercising de novo review attitude unless redetermine itself, unable afford protection rights. 'feel' proper element resolving unclear record, judgment way capability court2 determining right infringed.3 Proper duality American judicial system less. 26 Federal habeas corpus, allows develop fresh Townsend Sain, 372 293, 745, 770, provides satisfactory vehicle issues, evaluate himself on-the-spot considerations estimate assurance cold Those important bar. 27 While agree all doubt, selected carry day judgment: 28 'Q. Did you man? 29 'A. Yes, did. 30 Based record? 31 observation. added.) 32 Station, Beck? 33 area. 34 You indicated operating information? 35 Yes. 36 From get 37 couldn't divulge information. 38 you? 39 40 was? 41 Yes.' 42 never me Beck Beulah,' testify went specific area, related some whose name felt privileged divulge. find inference reasonable, admittedly sparse us, mentioned 43 Furthermore, reaching inference, might come into play. appears lack common understanding Petitioner argued pattern obvious, testifies confidential particular 'picking up' numbers 'on sight' warrant.'4 seeing need elaboration. Respondent, brief assumed fact.5 raised petition brief. Indeed first time, sponte, opinion. 44 vote Revised Code, § 2915.111. Possession 'numbers game' ticket. 'No own, possess, custody, control ticket, order, device representing shares interest known 'policy,' game,' 'clearing house,' words terms similar import, located drawn, paid, carried state. 'Whoever violates section fined five hundred dollars imprisoned six months offense; offense, thousand three years.' For years except per curiam opinions, speaks through syllabi ix; viii; vii. 'Individual speak writer. What useful purpose serve open question.' Thackery Helfrich, 123 334, 336, 449, 450. convicted, arrested. At follows: heard reports chance. Q. Previous convictions? A. Later Beck's sir? Three violations. this? during year 1959, believe. 1959? Then didn't 1960 concerned? Not knowledge.' About few minutes 1:00 p.m. afternoon. automobile? proceeding lawfully down street? north Street. him? east Beulah. traffic offense? No; reason. caused curb? myself requested Prior arrest? while other words, placed discovered illegal? Other hunting knife automobile, it. Why place operation, chance? not. evidence? information.' rested Amendment, Rules Criminal Procedure. 112, 1513. involved warrants, language '* Warrants issue, course applies warrants.' 485—486, 1250. articulated attributed presume unwilling accept presumption, should, least, remand order score rest. note 1, supra. Norris Alabama, 294 587, 55 579, 1074, concluded, contrary finding, Negroes' names unlawfully added jury book, glance appear exception, proves rule. documentary 'on-the-spot' involved. Reply appellant p. 5. Brief respondent, 8.

Category: 0