Legal Document

415 U.S. 800 94 Supreme Court Reporter 1234 39 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 771 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Eugene or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 EDWARDS and William T. Livesay. Number 73—88. Argued Jan. 15, 1974. Decided March 26, Syllabus Respondent Edwards was arrested shortly after 11 p.m. on May 31, 1970, taken to jail. The next morning, a warrantless seizure made of his clothing over objection at later trial, which resulted in conviction, used as evidence. Appeals reversed. Though conceding the legality arrest; that probable cause existed for believing would reveal incriminating evidence; searches seizures could be time arrest may legally conducted when accused arrives place detention, court held Edwards' 'after administrative process mechanics (had) come halt,' unconstitutional. Held: search did not violate Fourth Amendment. Pp. 802—809. (a) At placed cell, normal processes incident custody had been completed, delay seizing unreasonable, since late hour no substitute available, morning police were able supply took laboratory analysis, they more than entitled do usual incarceration. 804—805. (b) Once an has lawfully is custody, effects possession detention subject searched seized without warrant even substantial lapse between processing, one hand, taking property use evidence, other. 806—808. 474 Federal Reporter, 2nd 1206, Edward R. Korman, Washington, D.C., argued States. With him brief Solicitor Gen. Robert Bork, Asst. Atty. Thomas W. Petersen Jerome M. Feit, D.C. Smith, Cincinnati, Ohio, respondents. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 question here whether Amendment should extended exclude from evidence certain respondent while he city jail approximately 10 hours arrest. 2 Shortly streets Lebanon, charged with attempting break into city's Post Office.1 He local cell. Contemporaneously thereafter, investigation scene revealed attempted entry through wooden window apparently pried up pry bar, leaving paint chips sill wire mesh screen. trousers T-shirt purchased wearing His then Examination matching samples window. This received trial neither nor results its examination admissible because invalid under 3 Expressly disagreeing two other Courts Appeals,2 it although lawful believe discovered respondent's clothing, carried out have halt' nevertheless unconstitutional 1211 (CA6 1973). We granted certiorari, 414 818, 160, 38 50, now conclude invalidate circumstances this case. 4 prevailing rule various exceptions. One them permits custodial arrests, versus Robinson, 218, 467, 427 (1973); Chimel California, 395 752, 755, 89 2034, 2036, 23 685 (1969); Weeks States, 232 383, 392, 34 341, 344, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914), traditionally justified by reasonableness searching weapons, instruments escape, crime person official detained. supra.3 5 It also plain spot detention. If need be, Abel 362 217, 80 683, 668 (1960), settled question. There defendant hotel, but belongings there. In sustaining search, noted valid perceived little difference. 6 'when decides take him, occur instead first there, especially additional justifications, similar those justify who arrested.' Id., 239, 697. 7 courts appeals followed same rule, holding both immediate station house occurred another if discovered, admitted evidence.4 Nor there any doubt upon arrival subjected analysis test are trial.5 8 Conceding all this, case required where occurs completed prisoner incarcerated. But these terms, seems us cell night 31. cause, authorities point only keep custody. testimony standard practice city.6 possession, including clothing. And acknowledged contemporaneously went articles wore themselves material arrested. F.2d, 1210. night; available wear, certainly unreasonable stripped left exposed throughout night. Cf. Caruso, 358 184, 185—186 (CA2), cert. denied, 385 862, 87 116, 17 88 (1966). When substitutes analysis. constituted crime. arrest, reasonable effectuating does change fact imposed immediately June 9 Other closely related considerations sustain must remembered 31 necessarily wore. became apparent being held, take, examine, preserve just normally permitted seize encountered. Frazier Cupp, 394 731, 1420, 22 684 Warden Hayden, 387 294, 1642, 18 782 (1967); Ker 374 23, 83 1623, 726 (1963) (plurality opinion); Zap 328 624, 66 1277, 90 1477 (1946), vacated grounds, 330 800, 67 857, 91 1259 (1947). Surely, clothes brushed down vacuumed similarly examine did, particularly view existence linking Indeed, difficult perceive what about police's examining personal already their result Cooper 386 58, 788, 730 (1967), narcotics offense automobile impounded preparatory institution forfeiture proceedings. car week introduced defendant's criminal trial. sustained 'closely reason petitioner arrested, impounded, retained. . hold police, having retain such length time, right, own protection, it.' 61—62, S.Ct., 791. answer say obtained warrant, procure itself reasonable, was. 62, supra, expresses views. There, until six properly required: 'He constantly moment inspection were, circumstances, proper.' 185 (citations omitted). 12 Caruso typical most cases long concluded once though period elapsed subsequent true jail, name 'property room' trial.7 physically sometime incarceration.8 13 upholding seizure, we Warrant Clause never applicable postarrest arrestee.9 think First Circuit captured essence situations like said DeLeo, 422 487, 493 (1970) (footnote omitted): 14 'While legal destroy privacy premises, does—for least extent—take realm protection interest means evidence.' 15 judgment 16 So ordered. Reversed. STEWART, whom DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, MARSHALL join, dissenting. 19 says before 'is extended' prohibit & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions think, contrary, real ignored. For my can reversed disregarding established principles firmly embodied many previous decisions 20 As repeatedly emphasized past, 'the basic constitutional area 'searches outside judicial process, prior approval judge magistrate, per se few specifically well-delineated exceptions." Coolidge New Hampshire, 403 443, 454—455, 2022, 2032, 29 564; Katz 389 347, 357, 507, 514, 576. Since conceded pursuant becomes Government met burden showing brought within 'jealously carefully drawn'1 exceptions requirement. 21 finds unnecessary respondent. is, course, well constitutionally 427; 685. mere allow engage unlimited geographic temporal scope. Rather, spatially limited arrestee reach, must, 'substantially contemporaneous arrest,' Stoner 376 483, 486, 84 889, 891, 856; Preston 364, 367—368, 881, 883—884, 777. Under facts case, am unable agree Court's 'incident' fully processing end. part 'inventory' prisoner's effects, routine exchange civilian garb.2 typically wholly absent here. Black stated unanimous 367, 883: 'The allowing justified, example, weapons things might assault officer effect prevent destruction crime—things easily happen weapon accused's control. justifications remote arrest.'3 24 Accordingly, see justification dispensing requirement ample seek exigent present excuse failure so. Unless 'enthroned rule,' Rabinowitz, 339 56, 80, 70 430, 441, 653 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting), precisely sort situation requires magistrate's search. 25 relevant 'not reasonable.' Ante, 807. Precisely view, however, explicitly rejected 764—765, 2041, characterized argument 'founded subjective regarding acceptability sorts conduct, interests.' Chimel, words Frankfurter again here: 26 'To require some criterion reason. guide either jury district judges 'unreasonable search' forbidden—that reasonable. What makes reasonable? underlying expressed Amendment: history experience embodies safeguards afforded against evils response. permit barring inherent limitations good getting ..' 83, 443 (dissenting opinion). 27 intrusion hardly shocking one, cannot acted bad faith. Amendment, designed apply massive violation shockingly flagrant. classic admonition Boyd 116 616, 635, 524, 535, 746 put matter: 28 'It obnoxious thing mildest repulsive form; illegitimate practices get footing way, namely, silent approaches slight deviations modes procedure. obviated adhering provisions security liberally construed. A close literal construction deprives half efficacy, leads gradual depreciation consisted sound substance. duty watchful rights citizen, stealthy encroachments thereon.' Because today unjustifiably departs well-settled principles, respectfully dissent. (hereafter referred respondent) alleged confederate, Livesay, corespondent died petition certiorari granted. therefore vacate remand District directions dismiss indictment. Durham 401 481, 858, 200 (1971). Williams, 416 (CA5 1969), 184 'A suspect based Amendment; lawful, justification. establishes authority full exception 'reasonable' Amendment.' 235, 477. Manar, 454 342 (CA7 1971); Gonzalez-Perez, 426 1283 1970); 487 (CA1 supra; Miles, 413 (CA3 1969); Ray 412 1052 (CA9 Westover 164 1968); Frankenberry, 337 (CA2 1967); Evalt 382 424 Malone Crouse, 380 741 (CA10 Cotton 371 Miller Eklund, 364 976 1966); Hancock Nelson, 363 249 Golliher 594 (CA8 Rodgers nCA8), 993, 608, (1966); Whalem 120 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 346 812, 86 124, 100 (1965); Grillo 336 211 1964), denied sub nom. Gorin 379 971, 85 669, 563 Robinson 109 22, 283, 508 (1960); Baskerville 227 1955). See, e.g., supra. App., 6. Historical points custom permitting jailer processed confinement Gardner V. Manian, Principles Cases Law Arrest, Search, Seizure (1974); E. Fisher, Search 71 (1970). While '(a) allowed prevail right,' Gouled 255 298, 313, 41 261, 266, 65 647 (1921), ever validity T Taylor, Two Studies Constitutional Interpretation 50 (1969). See Baskerville, safekeeping December re-examined January Brett contra. custom, room Three days found. divided panel inadmissible want authorizing 1966). Hancock, 12:51 a.m. day, so eventuated. Holding inapplicable leave law enforcement officials restraints. type conduct 'must (still) tested Amendment's general proscription seizures.' Terry 392 1, 20, .s.Ct. 1868, 1879, 889 (1968). complains secured. thus occasion express concerning surrounding incarceration 'violate dictates number manner perpetration.' Charles 278 386, (CA9), 831, 81 46, 59 (1960). Schmerber 384 757, 1826, 908 Rochin 165, 72 205, 96 183 (1952). Jones 357 493, 499, 78 1253, 1257, 1514. oral matter procedure, undertaken solely purpose chips. No contention necessitated exigencies maintaining discipline system. consider legitimacy penal quite different rationale. claim feared possessed planning suggested aware presence

Classification Label: 0