Document: 517 U.S. 690116 S.Ct. 1657134 L.Ed.2d 911 ORNELAS et al.v.UNITED STATESCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit No. 95-5257. Supreme Argued March 26, 1996 Decided May 28, Syllabus* In denying petitioners' motion suppress cocaine found in their car, District ruled that police had reasonable suspicion stop and question petitioners, probable cause remove one interior panels where a package containing was found. The ultimately affirmed both determinations, reviewing each "deferentially," "for clear error," finding no error either instance. Held: ultimate questions make warrantless search should be reviewed de novo. principal components inquiry are (1) determination historical facts leading up or search, (2) decision on mixed law fact whether facts, viewed from standpoint an objectively officer, amount cause. Independent appellate review latter is consistent with position taken by this Court, see, e.g., Brinegar v. States, 338 U. S. 160, 160; will prevent unacceptably varied results based interpretation similar different trial judges, see id., at 171; necessary if courts maintain control of, clarify, pertinent legal rules, Miller Fenton, 474 104, 114; tend unify precedent provide defined set rules which, most instances, it possible reach correct beforehand as invasion privacy justified interest enforcement, New York Belton, 453 454, 458. However, court take care findings only give due weight inferences drawn therefrom resident who view such light community's distinctive features events, local police, through lens experience expertise. Pp. 5-10. 16 F. 3d 714 52 328, vacated remanded. Rehnquist, C. J., delivered opinion which Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, filed dissenting opinion. Chief Justice Rehnquist Court. 1 Petitioners pleaded guilty possession intent distribute. They reserved right appeal Court's denial car. petitioners they entered two kilos opined stop, error." We hold 2 not disputed. early morning December day 1992, Detective Michael Pautz, 20-year veteran Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department years specializing drug conducting drug-interdiction surveillance downtown Milwaukee. Pautz noticed 1981 two-door Oldsmobile California license plates motel parking lot. car attracted Pautz's attention reasons: because older model, General Motors cars favorite couriers easy hide things them; "source State" drugs. radioed his dispatcher inquire about car's registration. informed owner Miguel Ledesma Ornelas San Jose, California; unsure name gave. checked registry learned Ismael accompanied second man registered 4:00 a.m., without reservations. 3 called partner, Donald Hurrle, detective approximately 25 enforcement experience, assigned past 6 unit. When Hurrle arrived scene, officers contacted office Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) asked DEA personnel run names Narcotics Dangerous Drugs Information System (NADDIS), federal database known suspected traffickers. Both appeared NADDIS. NADDIS report identified heroin dealer El Centro, California, Ornelas, Jr. Tucson, Arizona. then summoned Deputy Luedke department's drug-sniffing dog, Merlin. Upon arrival, left another assignment. what knew together waited. 4 Sometime later, emerged got into Oldsmobile. approached himself inquired any illegal drugs contraband. answered "No." identification given driver's licenses bearing Saul Ornelas. them he could consented. men calm, but shaking somewhat. Luedke, over nine searched 2,000 narcotics, Oldsmobile's interior. He panel above rear passenger armrest felt somewhat loose might have been removed contraband hidden inside. would testify later screw door jam adjacent rusty, him meant some time. dismantled discovered kilograms cocaine. were arrested. 5 pretrial motions suppress, alleging violated Fourth Amendment rights when detained lot inside warrant.1 Government conceded below lot, person free leave, so encounter investigatory stop. See 714, 716 (CA7 1994). An permissible under supported suspicion, Terry Ohio, 392 (1968), valid cause, Acevedo, 500 565, 569-570 (1991). After evidentiary hearing, Magistrate Judge concluded circumstances gave found, fact, there rust hence insufficient basis conclude within panel. nonetheless recommended deny suppression thought, presence lawful means eventually therefore admissible inevitable discovery doctrine. Nix Williams, 467 431 (1984). 7 adopted Magistrate's recommendation respect its reasoning thought age, source-State origin traveling o'clock reservations, formed drug-courier profile reports rise drug-trafficking activity; court's view, became Accordingly, need excluded. 8 deferentially determinations cause; reverse upon "clear error."3 3d, 719. reasonable-suspicion analysis determination. Ibid. With probable-cause finding, however, remanded case credible testifying Id., 721-722. 9 On remand, expressly testimony credible. accepted once again search. held clearly erroneous. Judgt. order reported 328 (1995). 10 granted certiorari resolve conflict among Circuits applicable standard review. 516 ___ (1996). 11 Articulating precisely "reasonable suspicion" "probable cause" mean possible. commonsense, nontechnical conceptions deal " `the factual practical considerations everyday life prudent men, technicians, act.' Illinois Gates, 462 213, 231 (1983) (quoting 176 (1949)); Sokolow, 490 1, 7-8 (1989). As such, standards "not readily, even usefully, reduced neat rules." supra, 232. described simply "a particularized objective basis" suspecting stopped criminal activity, Cortez, 449 411, 417-418 (1981), existing sufficient warrant prudence belief evidence crime Brinegar, 175-176; 238. cautioned these principles "finely-tuned standards," comparable proof beyond doubt preponderance evidence. 235. instead fluid concepts substantive content particular contexts being assessed. 232; 175 ("The [for cause] . correlative must proved"); Ker 374 23, 33 (1963) ("This Cour[t] [has a] long-established recognition reasonableness susceptible Procrustean application"; "[e]ach decided own circumstances" (internal quotation marks omitted)); 29 (the limitations imposed "will developed concrete individual cases"). 12 events occurred first part involves fact: "[T]he admitted established, rule undisputed, issue satisfy [relevant] statutory [or constitutional] standard, put way, applied established violated." Pullman-Standard Swint, 456 273, 289, n. 19 (1982). 13 think independent we cases. never, ourselves, deferred See, supra (rejecting district conclusion lacked cause); Alabama White, 496 325 (1990) (conducting suspicion). A policy sweeping deference permit, "[i]n absence significant difference facts," "the Amendment's incidence [to] tur[n] judges draw general conclusions constitute cause." 171. Such inconsistent idea unitary system law. This, matter-of-course, unacceptable. 14 addition, acquire application. clarify principles. 114 (1985) (where "relevant principle can meaning application case, has reluctant trier fact's presumptive force and, doing, strip primary function expositor law"). 15 Finally, novo tends come closer providing `set makes enforcement.' 458 (1981); also Thompson Keohane, ___, (1995) (slip op., 16) ("[T]he declaration aspect potentially may guide precedent, stabilize law," those effects "serve legitimate interests"). It true mosaic analyzed multi-faceted, "one seldom useful `precedent' another," 238, 11. But exceptions. For instance, Carroll 267 132 (1925), alike reversing faithful Carroll. 178 ("Nor find present substantial distinguishing case"). likewise recognized similarity (1989) Florida Royer, 460 491 (in cases, defendant traveled assumed name; paid airline ticket cash number small bills; Miami, source city illicit drugs; nervous airport). same Ross, 798 (1982) 565 (1991), 572 closely resemble Ross"); Mendenhall, 446 544 (1980), Reid Georgia, 448 438 443 (Powell, concurring) ("facts [in Mendenhall] [are] remarkably And squarely one, decisions usefully add body subject. 17 Appeals, adopting deferential here, reasoned searches `great deference' warrant, 213 (1983). Spears, 965 2d 262, 269-271 1992). cannot agree. demonstrates "strong preference conducted pursuant warrant," 236, more likely use process scrutiny magistrate's less than searches. Were eliminate distinction, incentive. 18 matter appeal. Having said this, hasten point out officers. judge views community; officer background context seen yield deserve deference. example, located alongside transcontinental highway height summer tourist season level That unlikely overnight selected last minute traveler coming points east. 85-mile width Lake Michigan blocks further eastward progress. while city's salubrious climate seasonal attractions bring many tourists time year, December. Milwaukee's average daily high temperature month 31 degrees low degrees; percentage sunshine 38 percent. inference Californian stopping transact business visit family friends. though rarely subject explicit findings, inform judge's assessment facts. 20 vein, our cases deciding exists. Ortiz, 422 891, 897 (1975). To layman sort back seat arm rest automobile involved suggest wear tear, Officer roughly suggested secreted appeals reasonable. 21 vacate judgments remand case. 22 ordered. 23 djq dissenting. 24 today decides justify basis, others depending essentially considerations. Because, purpose extremely fact-bound nature relatively little benefit, my unwise require undertake searching requires. I affirm judgment Appeals. recognizes, involve two-step process. First, identify all relevant search; second, decide whether, reasonableness, justifying ante, 6-7. Because step requires properly characterized fact. 7; 26 Merely labeling issues "mixed questions," does establish receive While well settled "accep[t] `clearly erroneous' decid[e] novo," First Options Chicago, Inc. Kaplan, 514 9), rigid questions. "deferential warranted appears `better positioned' probing contribute clarity doctrine." Salve Regina College Russell, 499 225, 233 (1991) (citing (1985)). 27 These factors counsel favor fact-expertise lack law-clarifying value decision-are ordinarily details often numerous (even uncontroverted testimony) credibility determinations. never benefit intimate familiarity case-nor full hearing live testimony, unless specific "totality Cooter & Gell Hartmarx Corp., 384 (1990), holding (abuse-of-discretion) Federal Rule Civil Procedure attorney did conduct entertain "substantiated belief" regarding nonfrivolousness complaint, 393: court, "[f]amiliar litigants better situated marshal apply fact-dependent ." 402. 28 Moreover, acknowledges, "commonsense, ` act." ' Ante, 5-6 (1949))). Where commonsense totality circumstances, accorded What concerning certain payments "gift" excludable income Internal Revenue Code, equally here. "Decision presented fact-finding tribunal's mainsprings human close relationship data multiplicity elements, various combinations, creating necessity ascribing proper each, confirm us area fact." Commissioner Duberstein, 363 278, 289 (1960). 30 factor counseling review, decision: Law clarification generalization, lend themselves generalization much others. Thus, Pierce Underwood, 487 552, 562 (1988), applying abuse-of-discretion States' litigating "substantially justified" Equal Access Act, Section(s) 2412(d), multifarious novel question, susceptible, least, generalization." Probable similarly resistant generalization. "fluid concepts," `not rules' "; "because multifaceted, `one "precedent" another.' 6, 232, 11). maintains exceptions this-that fact-patterns occasionally repeat themselves, prior guidance 8-9. do dispute that, understand why allow exception frame rule. Here, Anderson Bessemer City, 470 564, 574-575 (1985), "[d]uplication efforts very negligibly accuracy de-termination huge cost diversion judicial resources." illustrate futility attempting craft fact-intensive demanded suspicion. consider, inter alia, following stop: (i) tips; (ii) product; (iii) state; (iv) Milwaukee; (v) December; (vi) suspect hotel a.m.; (vii) reservations; (viii) companion; (ix) calm shaking; (x) door. If unique confluence next render inapplicable. 32 Of course, replicated, opposed greater suffice aside. holds, reversible advances just reversed after plenary additional against mentioned: prime is, miscarriage justice result permitting verdict single judge. innocence deterrence unlawful conduct. lessened determination, wrong, subjected 34 wrong assertion, 9, dual review-deferential ex post facto approval search-the incentive obtain eliminated. Leon, 468 897, 913 (1984), "reliable physical seized reasonably relying issued detached neutral magistrate prosecutor's chief." Only assurance fruits technically improper admissible. still ample proceed warrant. 35 observe appear courage conclusions. apparent effort reduce unproductive burden today's imposes courts, perhaps salvage superior cast aside, suggests "due weight" officer's wrongdoing (i.e., search), 10. ways. This "reasonableness" told novo; "weight due" zero. analysis, there-fore, seems me contradictory. 36 * 37 ground correctly syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. alleged consent rejected claim, record "clearly establishe[d] Oldsmobile" "neither [petitioner] placed restrictions areas search." App. 21. authority panel, dismantle during otherwise believe contain narcotics. Garcia, 1413, 1419-1420 (1990). assume Circuit's limitation scope purposes decision. emphasized twice reject 30-31, 2; 43-44. defend seizure alternative considered argument waived. 71-72. uses term error" denote preferable "abuse discretion." 558 (1988). "Clear art derived 52(a) Rules Procedure, applies Compare, Puerta, 982 1297, 1300 (CA9 1992) (de review); Ramos, 933 968, 972 (CA11 1991) review), cert. denied, 503 908 (1992); Patrick, 899 169, 171 (CA2 1990) review) 268-271 (clear error). accord contends invited Peter D. Isakoff brief argue amicus curiae support below. Mr. appointment fulfilled responsibility.

Category: 0