Court Opinion

ID: 9429346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:26:29.124971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:19.083507
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
The issue in this case is remarkably similar to the controlling issue in Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730 (1983): Was there “virtual certainty” that the police would find contraband inside an unusual container that they had lawfully seized? The unique character of the balloon in Brown, like the unique character of the metal case enclosing a table that in turn had been designed to conceal drugs, combined with other circumstantial evidence, provided powerful evidentiary support for the conclusion that contraband was inside the container. In this case, as in Brown, I believe the “absolute certainty” test applied by the state court was somewhat more strict than is required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I would therefore vacate the judgment of the Illinois Appellate Court and remand for further proceedings.*

If I were sitting as a trial judge, and actually had heard the evidence, I believe I would have found that there was virtual certainty that the police officers were correct in both cases. But, unlike my colleagues, I do not believe it is this Court’s province to make such factual determinations. See United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S. 499, 516-517 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); First National City Bank v. Banco para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U. S. 611, 636 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).