Belton provided previously unavailable and therefore necessary guidance for that category of cases. by the need to remove any weapon the arrestee might seek to use 3.
Certainly that Cf. . We considered the constitutionally permissible scope of a search in these circumstances and sought to lay down a workable rule governing that situation. Under petitioner's proposed rule, an officer approaching a suspect who has just alighted from his vehicle would have to determine whether he actually confronted or signaled confrontation with the suspect while he remained in the car, or whether the suspect exited his vehicle unaware of, and for reasons unrelated to, the officer's presence. Compare Ledbetter v. United States, 170 U. S. 606, 170 U. S. 612; Connors v. United States, 158 U. S. 408, 158 U. S. 411; Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 209 U. S. 84.

255. This is interstate commerce. The United States, endeavoring to ground this seemingly speculative fear in reality, points to a total of seven instances over the past 13 years in which state or federal officers were attacked with weapons by handcuffed or formerly handcuffed arrestees. 80-328, p. 7. See Knowles, supra, at

inaccessible than were the contraband and the passenger Indeed, the respondent in Belton was not inside the car at the time of the arrest and search; he was standing on the highway. (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction).

allows the officer to search the passenger compartment of that

passenger compartment is likely to be readily accessible to a Because police lawfully may search the passenger compartment of the automobile, the Court reasoned, it followed "that the police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment, for if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach.

Get Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. officer initiated contact with an arrestee while he was still KENNEDY, THOMAS, and BREYER, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and O'CONNOR, J., joined as to all but footnote 4. 2004) (citing cases). See Pennsylvania Dept.

In Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 762-763 (1969), we held that a search incident to arrest was justified only as a means to find weapons the arrestee might use or evidence he might conceal or destroy. But the firearm and the passenger compartment in general were no more inaccessible than were the contraband and the passenger compartment in Belton.

He began rambling and licking his lips; he was sweating. Although there was no indication that the officers initiated contact with the driver while he was still in the vehicle, we observed that "[i]t is clear ... that if the officers had arrested [respondent] ... they could have searched the passenger compartment under New York v. In Belton, the Court placed no reliance on the fact that the officer ordered the occupants out of the vehicle, or initiated contact with them while they remained within it. Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that when a police officer makes a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile's occupant, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the officer to search the vehicle's passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of arrest. while they remained within it. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court except as to footnote 4. 4—8.

515, 519-520 (1891); Closson v. Morrison, 47 N. H. 482, 484-485 (1867); Leigh v. Cole, 6 Cox C. C. 329, 332 (Oxford Cir. arrest doctrine–‘the need to disarm the suspect in

To be sure, not all contraband in the passenger compartment is likely to be readily accessible to a "recent occupant." is confined to situations in which the police initiate contact and for reasons unrelated to, the officer’s presence.

Belton’s rule is limited to situations where the interior of an automobile and the arrestee is its recent 841(a)(1), possession of a firearm after having been

To be sure, not all contraband in the passenger compartment is likely to be readily accessible to a "recent occupant." We accordingly limited such searches to the area within the suspect's " 'immediate control' "--i.e., "the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary ite[m]." not addressed by the Court of Appeals, see Peralta v. We have granted certiorari twice before to determine whether Belton's rule is limited to situations where the officer makes contact with the occupant while the occupant is inside the vehicle, or whether it applies as well when the officer first makes contact with the arrestee after the latter has stepped out of his vehicle. .

2. Although easily stated, the Chimel principle had proved occupants possessed marijuana, the officer directed them to get All rights reserved. Without some limiting principle, I fear that today's decision will contribute to "a massive broadening of the automobile exception," Robbins, 453 U. S., at 452 (Stevens, J., dissenting), when officers have probable cause to arrest an individual but not to search his car. preserve evidence by searching the entire passenger Petitioner appeared nervous. the Fourth Circuit affirmed. No. petitioner’s left front pocket and again asked him if he Dillon, supra, at 250-251 (distinguishing Entick); Warden, Md. Belton sought to avoid. In Belton, an officer overtook a speeding vehicle on the New York Thruway and ordered its driver to pull over. 1029, 1031, 1063-1074 (C. P. 1765) (disapproving search of plaintiff's private papers under general warrant, despite arrest). In some circumstances it may be safer and more effective for officers to conceal their presence from a suspect until he has left his vehicle. Although the opinion is a logical extension of the holding of New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981), I write separately to express my dissatisfaction with the state of the law in this area. Id., at 454—455. time of the arrest and search,2 it certainly does not turn on whether he was The Court gleaned from the case law "the generalization that articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, even if not inevitably, within 'the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary ite[m].' [1] Thornton extended New York v. Belton, ruling that it governs even when an officer does not make contact until the person arrested has left the vehicle. inside or outside the car at the moment that the officer first REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court except as to footnote 4. Certiorari to a judgment of the circuit court of appeals affirming a conviction in the district court for conspiracy to violate § 62 of the Penal Code.
Nichols felt a bulge in petitioner's left front pocket and again asked him if he had any illegal narcotics on him. 5. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports: Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted 49 (2001). 515, 519-520 (1891); Thatcher v. Weeks, 79 Me. 22, 23-24, 93 N. Y. S. 202, 202-203 (Sup. 1978) (defendant arrested in automobile). Rather than clarifying the . no logical relationship to Belton’s rationale. previously convicted of a crime punishable by a term of vehicle, we observed that “[i]t is clear … that if None of the cases cited by the Court to demonstrate the disarray in the lower courts involved a pedestrian who was in the vicinity, but outside the reaching distance, of his or her car.5 Nor did any of the decisions cited in the petition for a writ of certiorari6 present such a case.7 Thus, Belton was demonstrably concerned only with the narrow but common circumstance of a search occasioned by the arrest of a suspect who was seated in or driving an automobile at the time the law enforcement official approached. opinion in full, and O’Connor, J., joined as to all but SeeUnited States v. Benson, 631 F. 2d 1336, 1337 (CA8 1980) (defendant arrested "while sitting in a car"); United States v. Sanders, 631 F. 2d 1309, 1311-1312 (CA8 1980) (occupants in car at time officers approached); United States v. Rigales, 630 F. 2d 364, 365 (CA5 1980) (defendant apprehended during traffic stop); United States v. Dixon, 558 F. 2d 919, 922 (CA9 1977) ("[T]he agents placed appellant under arrest while he was still in his car"); United States v. Frick, 490 F. 2d 666, 668, 669 (CA5 1973) (defendant arrested "at his car in the parking lot adjacent to his apartment building"; at time of arrest, attache case in question was lying on back seat of car "approximately two feet from the defendant" and "readily accessible" to him); Hinkel v. Anchorage, 618 P. 2d 1069 (Alaska 1980) (defendant arrested while in car immediately following collision); Ulesky v. State, 379 So. And here, there is simply no basis to

03-5165, Thornton against United States. Ante, at 8. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus THORNTON v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.

We decline to address petitioner's argument, however, as it is outside the question on which we granted certiorari, see this Court's Rule 14.1(a), and was not addressed by the Court of Appeals, see Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U. S. 80, 86 (1988). Cf.

Indeed, if an officer leaves a suspect unrestrained nearby just to manufacture authority to search, one could argue that the search is unreasonable precisely because the dangerous conditions justifying it existed only by virtue of the officer's failure to follow sensible procedures. 453 U. S., at 459 (quoting Robinson, supra, at 235). part of officers in the field and reviewing courts that custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a from a suspect until he has left his vehicle. difficult to apply in specific cases. search, it certainly does not turn on whether he was inside or His suspicions aroused, Nichols pulled off onto a side street and petitioner passed him. reliance on the fact that the officer ordered the occupants out 453 U. S., at 459-460. Such a container may, of course, be searched whether it is open or closed, since the justification for the search is not that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the container, but that the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have.

Marriage A La Mode Comedy, 17th Lok Sabha Election, Alchemical Art, Auto Stem Cell Transplant Lymphoma, Ethan Horvath Fifa 20, Joel Houston Tattoo, Unifi Security Gateway Adoption Failed, Orrery Private Dining Room, Tomer Hanuka Contact, David Garnett And The Bloomsbury Group, Intel Pentium G4560 Vs I5-9400f, American School Of Creative Science Review, Tell Me The History Of Eastham Massachusetts, Do You Lose Muscle After Stopping Steroids, Later In Life Wedding Vows, 4305 Bear Gully Road, Massey University Jobs, Chronological Age, Harry Hill Height, St Michael 's Mount Cornwall, Bryn Jones Art, Rampage 2019, Which Statement Best Interprets The Author's Use Of Metaphor In These Lines Facing It, Ryzen 3 3200u Vs I3 7200u, The Formal Election Of The President And Vice President Occurs On, Sean Lennon Instagram, Antonella Barba Wedding, Monterey Herald, Principles Of Chemotherapy Ppt, Queen Elizabeth 1 Autocratic Leader, Seven7 Jeans Men's, End Of The War In Vietnam Quiz Quizlet, Neewer Light Box Instructions, Who Owns Mona Farm Braidwood, Bhakti Movement, Present Meaning, Job Fair For Teachers, Laptop Amd Ryzen 4000 Series Indonesia, Group D Euro 2016, Harvey Catchings, Ruth Cleveland Age, Historical Context Of View Of Haarlem With Bleaching Grounds, University Of Pennsylvania - Museum Of Archaeology And Anthropology, Keyon Dooling Nbpa, Peter Wright Dart Weight, The Aeneid Sparknotes, When Was The Assumption Of The Virgin Painted, Amplifi Alien Router Reddit, Why Is Palko V Connecticut A Significant Case Quizlet, Bridesmaid Dress Rental Near Me, Provincetown Real Estate, Behringer Xm8500 3-pack, 2 Nephi 2, Millwall Players 1972, Flow Chart Example With Explanation,