Draper v. United States

Supreme Court of United States
358 U.S. 307 (1959)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Information from a reliable informant, when corroborated by a police officer's personal observation of detailed, predictive facts, can establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest.

Facts:

Hereford, a 'special employee' for the Bureau of Narcotics, had a history of providing federal agent Marsh with accurate and reliable information about narcotics violations.
On September 3, 1956, Hereford informed Marsh that James Draper was dealing narcotics in Denver.
On September 7, Hereford told Marsh that Draper had traveled to Chicago by train the day before to acquire heroin.
Hereford stated that Draper would return to Denver by train on the morning of either September 8 or 9, carrying three ounces of heroin.
Hereford provided a detailed description of Draper, including his appearance, the clothes he would be wearing, that he would be carrying a tan zipper bag, and that he habitually walked 'real fast'.
On the morning of September 9, Marsh went to the Denver train station and observed a man matching Draper's exact description alight from an incoming Chicago train.
The man was carrying a tan zipper bag and walking quickly, just as Hereford had predicted.
Marsh and another officer stopped Draper, arrested him, and upon searching him, found two envelopes of heroin in his pocket and a hypodermic syringe in the bag.

Procedural Posture:

James Draper was charged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado with violating federal narcotics laws.
Before trial, Draper filed a motion to suppress the heroin and syringe evidence, arguing it was obtained via an unlawful search and seizure.
The District Court (trial court) denied the motion, finding the arresting officer had probable cause.
Draper was convicted at trial after the evidence was admitted over his renewed objection.
Draper (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed the conviction.
Draper (as petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Fourth Amendment question.

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 law enforcement officer have probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to conduct a warrantless arrest based on a tip from a reliable informant that is substantially corroborated by the officer's own observations?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Whittaker

Yes. An officer has probable cause when a reliable informant's detailed tip is personally verified by the officer's own observations. The petitioner's first argument, that the informant's tip was hearsay and thus could not be considered for probable cause, is incorrect. Citing Brinegar v. United States, the Court affirmed that there is a significant difference between the evidence required to prove guilt at trial and the information needed to establish probable cause for an arrest; hearsay is permissible for the latter. The petitioner's second argument, that the information was insufficient, also fails. The informant, Hereford, was known to be reliable. Agent Marsh personally corroborated every detail of Hereford's tip—Draper's appearance, clothing, bag, fast walk, and his arrival on a train from Chicago—except for the final detail of whether he possessed the heroin. This extensive corroboration provided Marsh with 'reasonable grounds' to believe that the remaining, unverified part of the tip was also true, thus establishing probable cause for a lawful arrest and a valid subsequent search incident to that arrest.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas

No. A law enforcement officer does not have probable cause for a warrantless arrest when acting solely on an informer's word without any independent evidence of criminal activity. The arresting officers had no personal knowledge or evidence that a crime was being committed before the arrest; their actions were based entirely on the informant's accusation. The details they corroborated—a person's appearance, clothing, and gait—are innocent facts, not indicators of guilt. The standard for a warrantless arrest should not be lower than the standard for obtaining a warrant, and no magistrate would issue a warrant based solely on an officer's testimony about what an informant said. This decision risks making the 'whispered accusations' of informers supreme, a practice contrary to the Fourth Amendment's protection against arrests based on mere suspicion. A search is not made legal by what it turns up.

Analysis:

This decision is a cornerstone of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, establishing that a reliable informant's tip, when sufficiently corroborated by independent police work, can constitute probable cause. It clarifies that the standard for probable cause is based on probabilities and practical considerations, not the strict rules of evidence applied at trial, thereby validating the use of hearsay. The case provides law enforcement with a practical framework for acting on tips from confidential sources, allowing them to make arrests after verifying predictive, albeit non-criminal, details of the information provided. This 'informant tip plus corroboration' model became a standard for probable cause analysis in future cases.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Draper v. United States (1959)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature