Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Smith v. Ohio
494 U.S. 541
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1990-03-20
- Topic
- bankruptcy
holding that the search-incident-to-a-lawful-arrest rule does not apply to a warrantless search that provides the probable cause for the subsequent arrest because one cannot justify the arrest by the search and then simultaneously justify the search by the arrest | holding bag thrown on hood of car not abandoned when police had to remove defendant’s hand from bag in order to search it | holding that the seareh-incident-to-a-lawful-arrest rule does not apply to a warrantless search that provides the probable cause for the subsequent arrest because one cannot justify the arrest by the search and then simultaneously justify the search by the arrest | acknowledging that the “Fourth Amendment may permit a brief detention of property on the basis of only ‘reasonable, articulable suspicion’” | finding that the defendant's act of throwing a paper bag onto the hood of a car was insufficient to constitute abandonment of the property | observing that “no search or frisk ‘unlawful at its inception may be validated by what it turns up’ ” | observing that “no search or frisk ‘unlawful at its inception may be validated by what it turns up’” | observing that “no search or frisk ‘unlawful at its inception may be validated by what it turns up’” | observing that “no search or frisk ‘unlawful at its inception may be validated by what it turns up’” | noting that “‘[i]t is axiomatic that an incident search may not precede an arrest and serve as part of its justification’” (alteration in original) (citation omitted) | holding invalid an arrest based on contraband uncovered in search | recognizing exception to warrant requirement for searches incident to arrest | "`justify[ing] the arrest by the search and at the same time ... the search by the arrest,' just `will not do.'" | finding "a citizen who attempts to protect his private property from inspection, after throwing it on a car to respond to a police officer's inquiry, clearly has not abandoned that property." (Emphasis added.) | finding “a citizen who attempts to protect his private property from inspection, after throwing it on a car to respond to a police officer’s inquiry, clearly has not abandoned that property.” (Emphasis added.) | “[J]ustifying the arrest by the search and at the same time the search by the arrest just will not do.” | “[Justifying the arrest by the search and at the same time the search by the arrest just will not do.” | rejecting the argument that an individual abandoned his grocery bag where he attempted to protect it from inspection after throwing it on his car to respond to a police officer’s inquiry | rejecting the argument that a search is constitutional because its fruits justified the arrest | “[I]t is axiomatic that an incident [to arrest] search may not precede an arrest and serve as part of its justification.” | an attempt to justify "`the arrest by the search and at the same time ... the search by the arrest,' just `will not do'" | it is "`axiomatic that an incident search may not precede an arrest and serve as part of its justification'" | it is “axiomatic that an incident search may not precede an arrest and serve as part of its justification” | “ ‘justifying] the arrest by the search and at the same time . . . the search by the arrest,’ just ‘will not do.’ ” | arrest of pedestrian based on contraband discovered in search of grocery bag made without warrant or probable cause | "[I]t is axiomatic that an incident search may not precede an arrest and serve as part of its justification.” | the search incident to arrest exception “does not permit police to search any citizen without a warrant or probable cause so long as an arrest immediately follows” | “ ‘[i]t is axiomatic that an incident search may not precede an arrest and serve as part of its justification’ ” | “[T]he Fourth Amendment … proscribes independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines as exceptions to that doctrine | “‘[i]t is axiomatic that an incident search may not precede an arrest and se
Citator
- Cited by
- 96 opinions
This case raises the single question whether a warrantless search that provides probable cause for an arrest can nonetheless be justified as an incident of that arrest. A divided Ohio Supreme Court answered that question in the affirmative, reasoning that the search was neither remote in time nor place from the arrest. We disagree.
On a June evening, as petitioner and a companion exited a private residence and entered the parking lot of a YMCA, they were approached by two plainclothes officers of the Ash-land, Ohio, Police Department. The officers were driving-in an unmarked police vehicle. Petitioner was carrying a
No contention has been raised in this case that the officer’s reaching for the bag involved a self-protective action necessary for the officer’s safety. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). Although the Fourth Amendment may permit a brief detention of property on the basis of only “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that it contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 702 (1983), it proscribes — except in certain well-defined circumstances — the search of that property unless accomplished pursuant to judicial warrant issued upon probable cause. See, e. g., Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 619 (1989); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 390 (1978); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967). That guarantee protects alike the “traveler who carries a toothbrush and a few articles of clothing in a paper bag” and “the sophisticated executive with the locked attaché case.” United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 822 (1982). The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the warrantless search of petition
That reasoning, however, “justifying] the arrest by the search and at the same time . . . the search by the arrest,” just “will not do.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 16-17 (1948). As we have had occasion in the past to observe, “[i]t is axiomatic that an incident search may not precede an arrest and serve as part of its justification.” Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 63 (1968); see also Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 102 (1959); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98, 111, n. 6 (1980). The exception for searches incident to arrest permits the police to search a lawfully arrested person and areas within his immediate control. Contrary to the Ohio Supreme Court’s reasoning, it does not permit the police to search any citizen without a warrant or probable cause so long as an arrest immediately follows.
The State does not defend the reasoning of the Ohio Supreme Court, but rather contends that petitioner abandoned the bag when he threw it on his car and turned to face Officer Thomas. See Abel v. United States, 362 U. S. 217, 241 (1960); Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57, 58 (1924). That argument was unanimously rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court, 45 Ohio St. 3d, at 263, n. 6, 544 N. E. 2d, at 246, n. 6; id., at 266, 544 N. E. 2d, at 249 (Sweeney, J., dissenting); id., at 273-274, 544 N. E. 2d, at 255, n. 10 (Wright, J., dissenting), and we have no reason to disturb its conclusion. As the state court properly recognized, a citizen who attempts to protect his private property from inspection, after throwing it on a car to respond to a police officer’s in
The motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is
Reversed.