Legal Document

128 S. Ct. 1598 (2008) VIRGINIA, Petitioner, v. David Lee MOORE. No. 06-1082. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 14, 2008. Decided April 23, *1601 Stephen R. McCullough, for Petitioner. Michael Dreeben, States as amicus curiae, by special leave the Court, supporting Thomas Goldstein, Respondent. Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General Virginia, William E. Thro, State Solicitor General, Deputy C. Mims, Chief Marla Graff Decker, Leah A. Darron, Senior Assistant Office Richmond, Commonwealth Virginia. Pamela Karlan, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, CA, Amy Howe, Kevin K. Russell, Howe & P.C., Washington, D.C., Jane Chittom, Stacie Cass, VA, Steven Wu, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, Justice SCALIA delivered opinion Court. We consider whether a police officer violates Fourth Amendment making an arrest based on probable cause but prohibited state law. I On February 20, 2003, two City Portsmouth officers stopped car driven Moore. They had heard over radio that person known "Chubs" was driving with suspended license, and one knew Moore nickname. The determined Moore's license in fact suspended, arrested him misdemeanor which is punishable under Virginia law year jail $2,500 fine, Va.Code Ann. §§ 18.2-11, 18.2-272, 46.2-301(C) (Lexis 2005). subsequently searched found he carrying 16 grams crack cocaine $516 cash.[1] See 272 Va. 717, 636 *1602 S.E.2d 395 (2006); 45 Va.App. 146, 609 74 (2005). Under law, should have issued summons instead arresting him. Driving like some other misdemeanors, not arrestable offense except to those who "fail or refuse discontinue" violation, whom reasonably believes be likely disregard summons, harm themselves others. § 19.2-74 2004). intermediate appellate court none these circumstances applicable, did appeal determination. Va., at 720, n. 3, S.E.2d, 396-397, 3. also permits jurisdictions where "prior general approval has been granted order district court," 46.2-936; never claimed such effect county arrested. charged possessing intent distribute it violation He filed pretrial motion suppress evidence from search. does not, matter, require suppression obtained Va.App., 160-162, 82 (Annunziata, J., dissenting). argued, however, required Amendment. trial denied motion, after bench guilty drug charge sentenced 5-year prison term, six months sentence suspended. conviction reversed panel Virginia's grounds, id., 149-150, 76, reinstated sitting en banc, 47 55, 622 253 (2005), finally again 725, 400. reasoned since citation permit search incident citation, violated Ibid. certiorari. 551 U.S. ___, 28, 168 Ed. 2d 805 (2007). II protects "against unreasonable searches seizures" (among things) person. In determining seizure unreasonable, we begin history. look statutes common founding era determine norms meant preserve. Wyoming Houghton, 526 295, 299, 119 1297, 143 408 (1999); Wilson Arkansas, 514 927, 931, 115 1914, 131 976 (1995). are aware no historical indication ratified understood redundant guarantee whatever limits legislatures might enacted.[2]*1603 immediate object prohibit warrants writs assistance English judges employed against colonists, Boyd States, 116 616, 624-627, 6 524, 29 746 (1886); Payton New York, 445 573, 583-584, 100 1371, 63 639 (1980). That suggests, if anything, founding-era citizens were skeptical using rules set government actors index reasonableness. Joseph Story, among others, saw "little more than affirmance great constitutional doctrine law," 3 Commentaries Constitution 1895, p. 748 (1833), Story defined opposition statutes, see Codification Common Law Miscellaneous Writings 698, 699, 701 (W. ed. 1852). No early case commentary, our knowledge, suggested intended incorporate enacted statutes. None cases scholars identified sought base claim federal statute concerning arrest. Davies, Recovering Original Amendment, 98 Mich. L.Rev. 547, 613-614 (1999);[3] T. Taylor, Two Studies Constitutional Interpretation 44-45 (1969). Of course would available officers, restriction only upon power, Barron ex rel. Tiernan Mayor Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 8 672 (1833). But Congresses tied authority laws Di Re, 332 581, 589, 68 222, 92 210 (1948); Watson, 423 411, 420, 96 820, 46 598 (1976), Moreover, even though several constitutions seizures, restrictions violations ran afoul constitutions.[4] apparent absence litigation particularly striking light warrantless arrests (which say insulated private suit) were, commentator put it, "taken granted" founding, supra, 45, themselves, *1604 Amar, First Principles, 107 Harv. 757, 764 (1994). There number possible explanations why claims raised. example, argues actions taken could qualify action subject constraints. L.Rev., 660-663. Be may, adduces neither nor commentaries support his view this "not claimant can point `a clear answer [that] existed 1791 generally adhered traditions society ever since.'" Atwater Lago Vista, 532 318, 345, 121 1536, 149 549 (2001) (alteration original). III A When history provided conclusive answer, analyzed traditional standards reasonableness "by assessing, hand, degree intrudes individual's privacy and, other, needed promotion legitimate governmental interests." U.S., 300, 1297; Atwater, 346, 1536. methodology provides claim. long line cases, said when believe committed minor crime presence, balancing public interests doubt. constitutionally reasonable. Id., 354, 1536; also, e.g., Devenpeck Alford, 543 152, 125 588, 160 537 (2004); Gerstein Pugh, 420 103, 111, 95 854, 43 54 (1975); Brinegar 338 160, 164, 170, 175-176, 69 1302, 93 1879 (1949). Our decisions counsel changing calculus chooses protect beyond level requires. treated additional protections exclusively matters Cooper California, 386 58, 87 788, 17 730 (1967), held seized vehicle because explicitly authorize concluded authorized irrelevant. said, remained free "to impose higher seizures Federal Constitution," 62, regardless rules, lawfully matter California Greenwood, 486 35, 108 1625, 30 (1988), garbage forbidden California's "[W]hether reasonable within meaning Amendment," "depend[ed] particular occurs." 43, 1625. While "[i]ndividual may surely construe their own imposing stringent constraints conduct ibid., alter content applied same principle context. Whren 517 806, 1769, 135 89 (1996), acted stopping car, *1605 regulations limiting plainclothes unmarked vehicles. thought obvious Amendment's change local enforcement practiceseven practices rule. "vary place time time," "so variable" cannot "be made turn trivialities." 815, 1769. Some earlier excluded rested supervisory power courts, rather Constitution. 210, collaborated investigation led crime. Government argued legality 222. concluded, Congress must accordance without judged according state-law standards. 589-590, This plainly rule derived Constitution, repeatedly invited statutesaying governs validity "in [the] applicable statute," Re applies "except rule," Later expand Re. Johnson 333 10, 367, 436 (1948), relied identical relevant respects case. 12, 15, 5, 367. And Michigan DeFillippo, 443 31, 99 2627, 61 343 (1979), upheld compliance issue. "[w]hether make ordinarily depends, first instance, satisfies so "probable suspect committing crime." 36, 2627. need pick choose dicta: Neither following recent decisions, discussed above, indicated go above minimum, Constitution's remain same. B convinced approach prior correct, serves seen sufficient justify seizure. Whren, 817, 1769; Arrest ensures appears charges continue crime, safeguards enables in-custody investigation. W. LaFave, Arrest: Decision Take Suspect into Custody 177-202 (1965). interest policy certain crimes. so, will still ensure suspect's appearance trial, prevent continuing offense, enable investigate thoroughly. *1606 accurately characterized showing values its forgoing highly them, see, Dept. Justice, National Institute D. Whitcomb, B. Lewin, M. Levine, Issues Practices: Citation Release (Mar.1984) (describing cost savings principal benefit citation-release ordinances); places premium prefer search-and-seizure range permissible options, choice restrictive option render less ones hence unconstitutional. If otherwise, often frustrate further policy. individual dignity requires, attach potent remedies courts violations. exclude criminal trials 161, dissenting) (citing Janis Commonwealth, 22 App. 646, 651, 472 649, 652 (1996)). allow accord enhanced protection pain accompanying violations, include exclusionary unwilling lose control remedy abandon altogether. odd consequence provision designed seizures. Even changed nature Commonwealth's purposes adhere probable-cause standard. what given weight "essential readily administrable rules." 347, acknowledged nuanced judgments about desirable, nonetheless declined limit felonies disturbances peace allowing broken presence officer. 346-347, extends bright-line constitutionality offenses turned part inquiries risk flight danger repetition, deterred arrests. 351, little cost, there "epidemic unnecessary minor-offense arrests," "a dearth horribles demanding redress." 353, Incorporating limitations produce regime vague unpredictable rejected Atwater. standard easy apply underlying complicated indeed. case, calls weigh just sort case-specific factors deter inquiry. It fails refuses discontinue unlawful act, summons. *1607 Code 19.2-74.A.1. specifically noted "extremely poor judgment" displayed resident "almost certainly" discontinued "no hide incentive flee." considerations calculus. differs significant respect: considered (and rejected) all minor-misdemeanor arrests; seeks them subset least gainedthat is, already constrain officers' discretion abuse. Here confront fewer redress. Finally, linking time, vary statutory officers. Elkins 364 206, 210-212, 80 1437, 4 1669 (1960), practical difficulties posed "silver-platter doctrine," imposed acting independent them. strange adopted now restrict solely passed prerogative sovereigns. conclude crimes while regulate however they desire, do protections. IV allowed arrest, recognized, perform safety safeguard evidence. Robinson, 414 218, 94 467, 38 427 (1973). described covering any "lawful arrest," 235, reference point. say, equated lawful cause: "A custodial intrusion Amendment; being lawful, requires justification." (emphasis added). correctly notes important state-court lawfulness terms Brief Respondent 32-33 People Chiagles, 237 N.Y. 193, 197, 142 N.E. 583, 584 (1923); Defore, 242 13, 17-19, 150 585, 586 (1926)). surprising used "lawful" shorthand decision Robinson justifying present whenever makes evidence, most critically, during "the extended exposure follows taking custody transporting station." *1608 234-235, 467. Officers issuing citations face danger, therefore Knowles Iowa, 525 113, 484, 492 (1998), agree controls here. Moore, faced risks "an adequate basis treating alike exclusion because, instead. argument force forbade sometimes through unconstitutional methods Wong Sun 371 471, 484-485, 488, 83 407, 9 441 (1963). alone, province enforce * reaffirm novel challenge signaled half century. safety. judgment reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. GINSBURG, concurring judgment. find record position does, ante, 1602-1604.[1] Further, 587-590, requiring gained seems me pinned "supervisory power," 1604-1605.[2] *1609 am "long cases" holding that, renders every "constitutionally reasonable," 1604.[3] Court's conclusion reasoning, extent. (2001), offense. chose so. asks us credit officer's authority, part. emphasizes classification nonarrestable misdemeanor. ignore, limited consequences attaches failure follow summons-only instruction. For infraction, disciplined bring tort suit demand today's holds, all-or-nothing regard. yet deny persons apprehend extra orders. 1606. Because challenges violate join NOTES [1] immediately custody, each mistakenly believed done 54-55; 33-34. realized mistake arriving hotel room, consent search, there. contend delay [2] GINSBURG advances misdemeanors involving breach "depended authorization." Post, 1 (opinion judgment). cited both sources relies common-law quoted numerous treatises limitation 330-332, many breaches peace, extending reflected judge-made 330-331, Particularly materials relies, reason revisit case's conclusion. [3] Davies collects, 613, 174; 614, 175, lone treat contours simply years before shed enactment 622-623, (1886). [4] Massachusetts, paralleling litigants earliest claiming argue Brock Stimson, Mass. 520 (1871); Phillips Fadden, 198 (1878); Tubbs Tukey, 57 438 (1849) (asserting asserting constitution). prevailing end 19th century, typically depended authorization. Wilgus, Without Warrant, 541, 674 (1924) ("Neither [an officer] [a citizen], defendant] . [breach peace]" added)); Halsbury, Laws England 608, 611-612, 615 (1909). 342-345, (noting 19th-century upholding presence); (warrantless "made conform strictly provisions; otherwise valid, becomes trespasser"). Noting colonial hostility assistance, observes "founding-era reasonableness." Ante, 1604. resisted citizenry, served invade people's privacy, shield it. attributes Re's ruling Constitution." 1604-1605. Jackson, author mention placed context, ended reminder "our [places] obstacles way too permeating surveillance," 595, opinion, recognize, somewhat difficult parse. Allied instruction, announced choice-of-law Constitution: arrest; absent point, warrant takes determines validity." 588-589, Demonstrative line," lists (2004), (1949), (1975). unlike Tex. Transp. 543.001 (West 1999). 323, Wash. Rev.Code 10.31.100 (Michie 1997). Brinegar, felony, Okla. Stat., Tit. 22, 196 (1941). involved State's preliminary hearing procedures, 105, 854. indicate respondents' warrant. 1, serious felonies, "[a] felony [the [apprehended] it," Fla. Stat. 901.15(2) 1973).

Classification Label: 0