Document: 525 U.S. 113119 S.Ct. 484142 L.Ed.2d 492 KNOWLES v. IOWA(97-7597)569 N. W. 2d 601, reversed and remanded. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES119 No. 97 7597 PATRICK KNOWLES, PETITIONER IOWA ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO [December 8, 1998] Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of Court. 1 An Iowa police officer stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding, but issued him a citation rather than arresting him. The question presented is whether such procedure authorizes officer, consistently with Fourth Amendment, to conduct full search car. We answer this "no." 2 was in Newton, Iowa, after having been clocked driving 43 miles per hour on road where speed limit 25 hour. Knowles, although under law he might have arrested then conducted car, driver's seat found bag marijuana "pot pipe." charged violation state laws dealing controlled substances. 3 Before trial, moved suppress evidence so obtained. He argued that could not be sustained "search incident arrest" exception recognized United States Robinson, 414 218 (1973), because had placed arrest. At hearing motion suppress, conceded neither Knowles' consent nor probable cause search. relied searches. 4 Code Ann. §321.485(1)(a) (West 1997) provides peace officers believe person has violated any traffic or motor vehicle equipment may arrest immediately take before magistrate. also far more usual practice issuing lieu continued custody an initial arrest.1 See §805.1(1) Supp. 1997). Section 805.1(4) issuance "does affect officer's authority otherwise lawful search." Supreme Court interpreted provision as providing full-blown automobile driver those cases elect make custodial instead issue is, citation. State Meyer, 543 876, 879 (1996); Becker, 458 604, 607 (1990). 5 Based authority, trial court denied guilty. sitting en banc, affirmed by divided vote. 569 601 (1997). Relying its earlier Doran, 563 620 (1997), upheld constitutionality bright-line citation" Amendment's warrant requirement, reasoning long arrest, there need fact granted certiorari, 523 ___ (1998), we now reverse. 6 contends challenged Code's §805.1(4) only "on face" "as applied," which case, argument continues, his challenge would run afoul Sibron New York, 392 40 (1968). But "[b]ecause no warrant, cannot justified car unconstitutional." App. 7. did argue below, does here, statute never lawfully applied. therefore address at issue, authorized it law, nonetheless violates Amendment.2 7 In supra, noted two historical rationales exception: (1) disarm suspect order into custody, (2) preserve later use trial. U.S., 234. Edwards, 415 800, 802 803 (1974); Chimel California, 395 752, 762 763 (1969); Preston States, 376 364, 367 (1964); Agnello 269 20, 30 (1925); Weeks 232 383, (1914). these underlying sufficient justify present case. 8 first rationale safety " 'both legitimate weighty,' Maryland Wilson, 519 408, 412 (1997) (quoting Pennsylvania Mimms, 434 106, 110 (1977) (per curiam)). threat from citation, however, good deal less case stated involves "danger officer" "the extended exposure follows taking transporting station." 234 235. "[t]he danger flows attendant proximity, stress, uncertainty, grounds arrest." Id., 234, n. 5. A routine stop, other hand, relatively brief encounter "is analogous so-called 'Terry stop' formal Berkemer McCarty, 468 420, 437 (1984). Cupp Murphy, 291, 296 (1973) ("Where . well hostile likely conspicuous, immediate steps destroy incriminating evidence"). 9 This say concern absent stop. It plainly not. 110; 413 414. while context "minimal" additional intrusion ordering passengers out itself often considerably greater attending field-type Even without urges, other, independent bases weapons protect themselves danger. For example, they both driver, 111, passengers, 414; perform "patdown" upon reasonable suspicion armed dangerous, Terry Ohio, (1968); "Terry patdown" passenger compartment occupant dangerous gain control weapon, Michigan Long, 463 1032, 1049 (1983); even compartment, including containers therein, pursuant York Belton, 453 454, 460 (1981). 10 Nor shown second justification discover evidence. Once speeding all necessary prosecute offense No further excessive going either offender 11 nevertheless argues who subject stop attempt hide related identity (e. g., license registration), another, yet undetected crime. As destruction relating identity, if satisfied identification furnished basis merely destroying crimes, possibility stumble onto wholly unrelated seems remote. 12 held field "bright-line rule," based loss evidence, depend every existence concern. Here are asked extend rule" situation same extent all. decline do so. judgment reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. Notes 13 1. permits most offenses accused "eligible bail." addition violations, permit serious felonies second-degree burglary, §713.5 1997), first-degree theft, §714.2(1) 1993), bailable law. §811.1 (listing nonbailable offenses). permitting consistent reform efforts. Lafave, Search Seizure §5.2(h), p. 99, 151 (3d ed. 1996). 14 2. precluded failed seek review separate decision Court, conviction possession drug paraphernalia city ordinance. That decision, argues, resulted rejected Amendment makes, and, principles res judicata, bars challenge. failure certiorari preclude challenge, waived failing raise opposition petition certiorari. Court's Rule 15.2; Oklahoma City Tuttle, 471 808, 816 (1985) ("Nonjurisdictional defects sort should brought our attention respondent's certiorari; not, consider within discretion deem defect waived").

Category: 0