Court Opinion

ID: 9428485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:23:56.83391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:13.764314
License: Public Domain

Justice Blackmuzst,
dissenting.
I must dissent for the reasons stated in my respective writings in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 17 (1977), and Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753, 768 (1979). I also agree with much of what Justice Rehnquist says, post, at 439-443, in his dissenting opinion in the present case. The anticipated confusion that Chadwick and Sanders spawned for the Nation’s trial and appellate courts is well illustrated by Justice Stewart’s listing, ante, at 425-426, of cases decided by Federal Courts of Appeals since Chadwick was announced in 1977.
The decision in the present case at least has the merit of a “bright line” rule that should serve to eliminate the opaqueness and to dissipate some of the confusion. See 442 U. S., at 771-772. Nonetheless, under today’s holding, an arresting officer will still be forced, despite a concededly lawful search of the automobile, to go to the magistrate, whether near or far, for the search warrant inevitably to be issued when the facts are like those presented here. And only time will tell whether the “test,” ante, at 427, for determining whether a package’s exterior “announce [s] its contents” will lead to a new stream of litigation.
I continue to think the Court is in error and that it would have been better, see 442 U. S., at 772, “to adopt a clear-cut rule to the effect that a warrant should not be required to seize and search any personal property found in an automobile that may in turn be seized and searched without a war*437rant pursuant to Carroll [v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925),] and Chambers [v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42 (1970)].”