Beck v. Ohio
379 U.S. 89 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Probable cause for a warrantless arrest requires that the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officers are sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing the suspect has committed or is committing an offense. This standard is not met solely by an officer’s knowledge of a suspect's prior criminal record and vague, unspecified information from an unsubstantiated source.
Facts:
- On November 10, 1961, William Beck was driving his car in Cleveland, Ohio.
- Cleveland police officers, who did not have an arrest or search warrant, ordered Beck to pull over.
- The officers knew of Beck from a police photograph and were aware he had a prior criminal record for clearing house (gambling) violations.
- An officer testified he had received unspecified 'information' and 'reports' about Beck from a person he knew but did not identify.
- The officers arrested Beck, searched his car, and found nothing of interest.
- They transported Beck to a police station, where a search of his person revealed clearing house slips hidden in his sock.
Procedural Posture:
- William Beck was charged in the Cleveland Municipal Court with possession of clearing house slips.
- Beck filed a motion to suppress the slips as evidence, arguing they were obtained through an illegal search and seizure.
- The trial court denied the motion, admitted the evidence, and convicted Beck.
- An Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding the search was valid as incident to a lawful arrest.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless arrest violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures when the sole justification for the arrest is the officer's knowledge of the suspect's prior criminal record and unspecified 'information' or 'reports' from an undisclosed source?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
Yes. A warrantless arrest based on such scant information violates the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional validity of a search incident to arrest depends on the lawfulness of the arrest itself, which requires probable cause. Probable cause is determined by whether the facts and circumstances known to the officers at the moment of arrest would warrant a prudent person in believing an offense had been or was being committed. Here, the record is meager; it only shows the officers knew Beck's appearance and his prior record, and had received vague, unsubstantiated 'information.' This is insufficient to establish probable cause, as it would effectively allow anyone with a criminal record to be arrested at will. The prosecution failed to provide specific, articulable facts that would allow a court to determine if probable cause existed, and subjective good faith of the officers is not enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment.
Dissenting - Justice Clark
No. The warrantless arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Ohio determined as fact that police had received information from an informer that Beck would be in a certain location pursuing unlawful activities. This Court should defer to the state court's findings of fact when they are reasonably supportable in the record. By ignoring the Ohio court's factual determinations, the majority is improperly disputing the minutiae of facts in a search and seizure case, which should be left to the state and lower federal courts.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan
No. The warrantless arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Ohio Supreme Court's statement that police had an informant's tip about Beck's location and activities is a crucial finding of fact. If true, this information would be sufficient to establish the informant's reliability under Draper v. United States, thereby providing probable cause for the arrest. This Court should be extremely slow to upset a state court's inferential findings, especially when the 'feel' of the trial and witness credibility are involved. The record contains testimony that, while sparse, allows for a reasonable inference that the officer was acting on a specific tip, and this Court should not disturb that inference.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the requirements for probable cause in the context of warrantless arrests, reinforcing that the standard is objective, not subjective. It establishes that a person's prior criminal record, combined with vague, uncorroborated tips, does not amount to probable cause. The ruling places a clear burden on the prosecution to present specific, articulable facts to justify a warrantless arrest when it is challenged, ensuring that courts can meaningfully review police conduct. This precedent protects individuals from being targeted for arrest based merely on their past, strengthening the Fourth Amendment's shield against arbitrary police action.
Unlock the full brief for Beck v. Ohio