Legal Document

448 U.S. 98 100 Supreme Court Reporter 2558 -- United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 RAWLINGSv.KENTUCKY Number 79-5146. Argued March 26, 1980. Decided June 25, Syllabus When police officers, armed with a warrant to arrest one Marquess, arrived at his house, another resident of the house and four visitors including petitioner, were there. While searching unsuccessfully for several officers smelled marihuana smoke saw seeds. Two left obtain search other detained occupants, allowing them leave only if they consented body search. About 45 minutes later, returned warrant; was read remaining also given "Miranda" warnings; Cox, an occupant, ordered empty her purse, which contained drugs that controlled substances under Kentucky law. Cox told who standing nearby in response officer's command, "to take what his," petitioner immediately claimed ownership drugs. At time, officer searched finding $4,500 cash knife, then formally arrested. Petitioner indicted possessing intent sell recovered from Cox's trial court denied petitioner's motion suppress, as fruits illegal detention searches, drugs, money, statements made by him when discovered Petitioner's conviction affirmed Appeals, turn affirmed, holding had no "standing" contest purse because he legitimate or reasonable expectation freedom governmental intrusion into uncovering money pocket justifiable incident lawful based on probable cause. Held: 1. The conclusion did not sustain burden proving privacy so allow challenge validity is supported record, includes admission suppression hearing believe would be free intrusion. Nor entitled search, regardless privacy, merely purse. fact considered, "arcane" concepts property law do control ability claim protections Fourth Amendment. Cf. Rakas versus Illinois, 439 128, 99 421, 58 387. Pp. 104-106. 2. Under totality circumstances present (the giving Miranda warnings, short lapse time between admissions being outweighed "congenial atmosphere" during this interval, apparently spontaneous reactions discovery conduct appearing rise level conscious flagrant misconduct requiring prophylactic exclusion admissions, having argued anything than voluntary), carried its showing admitting acts will unaffected any illegality detention, assuming, arguendo, violated Fourteenth Amendments detaining companions while obtained warrant. Brown 422 590, 95 2254, 416. 106-110. 3. person uncovered knife valid formal arrest. Once admitted found cause him, where followed quickly after it important preceded rather vice versa. Pacific KF135 P2 110-111. 581 South Western Reporter, 2nd 348, affirmed. Judge Vincent Aprile II, Asst. Public Defender, Frankfort, Ky., petitioner. Victor Fox, Atty. Gen., respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 David Rawlings convicted Commonwealth charges trafficking in, possession of, various substances. Throughout proceedings below, challenged admissibility certain evidence ground searches. court, all rejected Rawlings' challenges. We granted certiorari, 444 989, 519, 62 418, now affirm. 2 * In middle afternoon October 18, 1976, six Lawrence Marquess drug distribution Marquess' Bowling Green, Ky. housemates, Dennis Saddler, visitors, Keith Northern, Linda Braden, Vanessa Rawlings. seeds mantel bedrooms. After conferring briefly, Officers Eddie Railey John Bruce gone, occupants living room, Northern Braden consent such permitted depart. remained seated room. 3 Approximately authorizing house. "Miranda " warnings card pocket. couch left. space handbag. 4 finished recitation, approached stand. Officer Don Bivens simultaneously contents onto coffee table front couch. Among those jar containing 1,800 tablets LSD number smaller vials benzphetamine, methamphetamine, methyprylan, pentobarbital, are 5 Upon pouring these objects out table, turned his." App. 62. Petitioner, Railey's shirt sheath side. placed 6 hearing, testified flown Green about week before look job perhaps attend local university. He brought later Initially, stayed took place guest Michael Swank, shared Saddler. party met spent least two nights next 7 On morning arrest, dropped off Swank's waited return class. carrying green bank bag. meet dumped bag Although there dispute over discussion place, "asked she carry me, said, 'yes'. . ." 42.1 room use bathroom and, returned, Marquess. 8 suppress exclude According authorized Moreover, even illegal, believed lacked Finally, revealed permissible "under exigencies situation." Id., 21. bench trial, guilty pentobarbital. 9 Appeals Disagreeing appellate held have legality but five persons subsequent searches people 10 again somewhat different rationale. See 348 (1979). Court, "legitimate intrusion" 350, citing 387 (1978). according pocket, owned II 11 challenges three aspects judgment below. First, claims purse.2 Second, argues fruit began refused let unless Third, contends itself illegal. 12 could looked primarily our recent decision supra, we abandoned separate inquiry defendant's allegedly favor focused directly substance possessed privacy" area searched. Katz States, 389 347, 88 507, 19 576 (1967). case, "totality circumstances," own intrusion,3 "[had] sufficient expectations violated" S.W.2d, 350. 13 record case supports conclusion. course, bears U.S., 131, n. 1, S.Ct., 423, 1; Simmons 390 377, 389-390, 967, 973-974, 1247 (1968). thousands dollars worth known few days. uncontested testimony, never sought received access prior sudden bailment. Contrast Jones 362 257, 259, 80 725, 730, 697 (1960). right 149, 433. fact, Bob Stallons, longtime acquaintance frequent companion Cox's, very rummaged through hairbrush. assuming version bailment correct transfer possession,4 precipitous nature transaction hardly inference normal precautions maintain privacy. Chadwick, 433 11, 97 2476, 2483, 53 538 (1977); 352, 511. addition foregoing facts, contains frank subjective remain intrusion, credited both Kentucky. 3, accompanying text. 14 nevertheless that, should disagree. undoubtedly considered case,Rakas emphatically notion ought 149-150, 17, 434, 17. Salvucci, 91-92, 2552-2553. Had plain view, still them, Prior Rakas, might been "search" netted probably lost merits. inquiries merge one: whether officials 15 sum, find reason overturn lower court's B 16 turn, then, contention illegally detention. Somewhat surprisingly, none courts below confronted issue squarely, though seem presented analysis except adopted concluded soon 17 can assume properly premises. Even constitutional violation, however, necessary result As noted 603, 2261, 416 (1975), "but for" approach statements, "persons arrested frequently may decide confess, act initial illegality." set forth standard determining tainted antecedent illegality: 18 "The question confession product must answered facts each case. No single dispositive. factor, sure, exploitation But factor considered. temporal proximity confession, presence intervening circumstances, particularly, purpose flagrancy official relevant. voluntariness statement threshold requirement. And rests, prosecution." 603-604, 2261-2262 (footnotes citations omitted). Dunaway New York, 442 200, 218, 2248, 2259, 60 824 already noted, undertake suggested Brown. Nevertheless, itself, "the resulted amply detail depth determination made." 604, 2262. 20 observe moments incriminating consideration treated important, although dispositive, 21 calls attention "temporal confession. .." 2261. period approximately minutes. strictest custodial conditions suffice purge taint, examine precise detained. By accounts, chose order sat quietly initially, moved freely first floor informed until warrant, Saddler "just went got cup down started waiting" return. Tr. 109. asked counsel "any show force violence you Dave anybody else," explained: 22 "A Oh, no. One tried sick my half month old dog officers. (laughing) 23 "Q48 You're saying joking manner? 24 Yeah. just wagged tail. 25 "Q49 that's most violent thing proposed toward officers; correct? 26 Yes, sir. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions would—they more less courteous us trying be—we offered drink water whatever wanted." 113. 27 reaction pending issuance "[get] up put album on. 110. dissenting judge noted: "[A]ll witnesses sides litigation agreed congenial atmosphere existing forty-five minute interval. 73 (Lester, J., dissenting). think outweigh relatively elapsed initiation admissions. 28 suggests inquire intervened statements. Here, little doubt weighs heavily acted "of need speculate motivations since explained examination counsel, follows: 29 "Q1 talking jail, things his, tell why that? 30 Well, said [Cox] freaking out, know, something. 31 "Q2 Did protect words effect? 32 now, mean going mean, wasn't try pin her." 130. 33 additional insight motivations: 34 "Q114 make jail substances? 35 Yes 36 "Q115 made? 37 main concern say anything, kept harping don't know how many times mentioned it, 'I hope doesn't break,' talk. walking sidewalk windows upset thought State's evidence." 103. 38 Fourth, mandates misconduct. uniformly measures avoid asportation destruction authorize temporarily scene suspected activity secure open question,5 belief scope well erroneous Ybarra 85, 338, 238 (1979), here does 605, 39 requires established requirement, has voluntary. Thus, examining Contract 40 Like Kentucky, difficulty upholding sizable quantity clearly Where heels person, particularly Bailey 128 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 357, Federal 305, 308 (1967); Brown, 150 113, 114, 463 949, 950 (1972). Cupp Murphy, 412 291, 93 2000, 900 (1973); Gorman, 355 151, 160 (CA2 1965) (dictum), cert. denied, 384 1024, 86 1962, 1027 (1966).6 III 41 Having error courts' refusal be, same hereby is, 42 Affirmed. 43 BLACKMUN, concurring. 44 join Court's opinion, write separately explain issues addressed Part II-A thereof. (1978), recognized analytically distinct "invariably intertwined" substantive Amendment jurisprudence. 139, 428. "whether [a] disputed seizure infringed interest defendant designed protect," id., 140, 429, second [that] righ[t]," ibid. questions invaded seizure. applicable requirements observed. 46 agree "merge one," ante, 106, sense principles developed (1967), progeny. today's decision, improper treat components claim. Indeed, am convinced invite confusion hold otherwise. It remains possible prove invaded, yet fail doing so. equally illegally, affected. 47 decisions interests cannot some least, weighty factors establishing existence fourth rights. Not every concept "arcane." exists desiccated ancient maxims dusty books. Earlier Term exclude" essential element modern Kaiser Aetna 164, 179-180, 383, 393, 332 "right often principal determinant establishment interest. Accordingly, confine possessory create otherwise conferred agreement Cox. 48 WHITE, whom STEWART joins, concurring part. 49 Parts II-B, II-C, undertaken II-B done instance recognizes, address state-court majority state concluding "disregard[ed] irrelevant procuring warrant." observed "[t]his explored hearing" sequence record." "[c]learly, arrest." 350 50 proceeding manner, plainly failed dispose federal question, implicitly recognizes. Because barely briefs vacate remand permit legal standard. This attempt factual inadequate purpose. 51 MARSHALL, BRENNAN dissenting. 52 pills belonged guilt conclusively. State concedes, must, unreasonable violation Amendment, see assumes led seizure, 106. upholds conviction. dissent. holds object introduction unconstitutional actions violate personal To reach result, Constitution protects individual against seizures "a 'legitimate privacy' searched." Ante, 104. cavalierly rejects fundamental principle, unquestioned today, either seized invoke Constitution's seizures. 54 previous cases begins ends—as desired conclusion—with Contrary assertion, establish individuals defendants their protection simply "legitimately [the] premises" searched, 267, 734, Overruling portion Jones, objection actual invasion petitioners automatic rule charged offenses, overrules 83, 2547, 65 619, items gave "actual standing." consequently, decided maintained. expressly disavowed intention foreclose ("This [casual] lawfulness search," 142, 430), continuing ("[P]etitioners' fail. They asserted neither nor automobile, seized," 148, (emphasis supplied)). 55 cited favor.* Further, ignored long tradition embodying opposite view. Jeffers, 342 48, 72 93, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951), example, involved contraband alleged belong hotel occupied aunts. Government's argument invade Jeffers' evidence. separated "[t]he incapable untied." 52, 95. Jeffers "unquestionably narcotics precluded purposes exclusionary rule, therein." Ibid. supplied). 56 Similarly, quite premised understanding "himself victim privacy." 261, 731. "conventional requirement," 262, 731, required "claim substantial premises searched," 731 relaxed offenses caused dilemma, i. e., convicts confers standing, eliminates necessity preliminary seized, ordinarily challenged." 263, 732 Instead, basis suffices give standing," 264, 732. 57 (1968), proceeded upon like understanding. reiterated wished assert owner possessor premises." 974 changed respect Garrett, robbery, standing. only, natural, way suitcase testify owner." 391, 975 (footnote 411 223, 228, 1565, 1568, 208 Mancusi DeForte, 392 364, 367, 2120, 2123, 1154 today wrong, contrary cases. wrong guarantees persons, houses, papers, effects, seizures, shall violated." reading far too narrow. misreads guarantee security "in seizures" afford places. seems provides language one's "effects" disturbed violation; always understood. Therefore insistence protected misplaced. item enough rights government's conduct. idea premises, property, squarely almost years ago supra. There stated: 61 Government respondent's he, therefore, seized. significant act, says, goods respondent without events easily isolable. Rather bound together sole purpose—to locate seize are, untied. quibbling distinction principle right." 95-96. government seizes person's interferes constitutionally effects. That interference gives reasonableness conduct, If unreasonable. 63 development head. history shows interests; expanded view afforded recognizing arise recognition intended historically sheltered protection. Neither purported provide exclusive definition recognized: "That kinds go further, nothing all." 510. Those freed jurisprudence constraints "subtle distinctions, refined common evolving private which, branch law, shaped distinctions whose largely historical." 266, 733. Rejection finely drawn concerns render wholly outside protection, however. involving rights, remember, 105. 64 inconsistently denies may, themselves, entitle strong others place. 105-106; Such harsh requirement imposed heyday oriented suppressed unlawful pass claim, shed light proper disposition appropriate defer determination. proceeds "petitioner's detention." 66 "spontaneous," 108, demand "take direct anyone depart "consented" search; assumed obviously suppressed. 67 Frankfurter: [of claim] Bill Rights, considers whole kind nuisance, serious impediment war crime." Harris 331 145, 157, 1098, 1104, 91 1399 (1947) (dissenting opinion). Today substantially cut back lest criminal convictions impeded. A slow steady erosion victims remedy saps life surely limitation. called excluded "successful," easy forget standards announce determine directed innocent guilty. continue ungrudging application indispensable preserving liberties democratic society. described differently. She getting ready "would please me" this, want purse." replied "okay, minute, will," point entered 12-14. transfer, corroborated events, testifying heard "I purse" reply "don't worry" something effect. 100. specifically bailment, skeptical events: finds unbelievable volition, Mrs. knocked door. around deposit sack days, unworthy door plausible pull elected 'push off' believing probable, possible, emminent [sic ]." "automatic standing" Our disposes adversely him. questioning "Q72 feel Vannessa ] there? intrusion? sir." 48. statement, noting immediately: "You what, boy tells truth. You wanted bring 'no, jury.' understand that.' blame that. That's I've ever seen attorney, course. "Now, fully understood meant None mind. ahead, so." intrusive traditional 209-210, [99 2254-2255, 824] (1979); Terry Ohio, 20, [88 1868, 1879, 889] depends 'on balance public individual's arbitrary officers.' Pennsylvania Mimms, 434 109, [98 330, 332, 331] Brignoni-Ponce, [422 873, 878, [95 2574, 2578, 607] (1975)]. Consideration constitutionality involves weighing gravity served degree advances interest, severity liberty." Texas, 443 47, 50-51, 2637, 2640, 357 were, support invites reader "contrast" (1960), overrules, "see" 105, passage following language: "At "relaxed" charging offense denying requisite "contrasts" connection subsidiary "bailment" "precipitous" "took cites source phrase purport restrict infra, 119-120.

Classification Label: 0