Gustafson v. Florida
1973 U.S. LEXIS 22, 38 L. Ed. 2d 456, 414 U.S. 260 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The authority to conduct a full search of a person incident to a lawful custodial arrest is a bright-line rule and does not depend on the probability that weapons or evidence will be found, nor does it require the arresting officer to have a subjective fear for their safety.
Facts:
- At approximately 2 a.m., Officer Paul R. Smith observed a Cadillac, driven by James Gustafson, weave across the center line three or four times.
- Smith pulled the vehicle over and asked Gustafson for his driver's license.
- Gustafson informed the officer that he was a student and had left his license in his dormitory room in a nearby city.
- Smith placed Gustafson under arrest for failure to have his operator's license in his possession.
- Smith then conducted a full search of Gustafson's person, patting down his clothing inside and out.
- During the search, Smith reached into Gustafson's coat pocket and extracted a Benson and Hedges cigarette box.
- Smith opened the cigarette box and discovered what he identified as marihuana cigarettes.
Procedural Posture:
- James Gustafson was convicted in a Florida trial court for unlawful possession of marihuana based on evidence seized during his arrest.
- Gustafson, as appellant, appealed to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, which reversed the conviction, holding the search was unreasonable.
- The State of Florida, as appellant, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida.
- The Supreme Court of Florida reversed the appellate court's decision, thereby reinstating Gustafson's conviction.
- Gustafson, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.
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 full search of a person's body incident to a lawful custodial arrest for a minor traffic offense violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No, a full search incident to a lawful custodial arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The fact of a lawful custodial arrest itself establishes the authority to search, making such a search a reasonable one under the Fourth Amendment. The authority to search is based on the need to disarm the suspect and preserve evidence, and it is not limited by the specifics of the arrest situation, such as the officer's subjective fear or the likelihood of finding evidence related to the particular crime of arrest. The Court explicitly extends the holding of its companion case, United States v. Robinson, stating that it is of no moment that the officer was not required by regulation to take the petitioner into custody or that he expressed no fear for his own safety. The custodial arrest is the crucial event that authorizes the full search.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes, this search violated the Fourth Amendment. The search conducted by Officer Smith went far beyond what was reasonably necessary to achieve the protective purpose of a search incident to arrest. Once the officer had the cigarette package in his hands, any potential threat from a weapon inside it, such as a razor blade, was neutralized. There was no justification for opening the package and looking inside, as this action had no connection to officer safety. Furthermore, the record does not support the state's claim that the officer had a reasonable suspicion of intoxication to justify searching for drugs, as Smith noted Gustafson showed no signs of impairment and the weaving was insufficient evidence even for a careless driving charge.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stewart
No, the search was constitutionally valid. While a persuasive claim might have been made that the custodial arrest itself for such a minor traffic offense was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the petitioner conceded the constitutional validity of the arrest. Given that the lawfulness of the custodial arrest was not challenged, it follows from settled constitutional precedent that the incidental search of his person was also constitutionally valid. To hold otherwise would be an abrupt departure from established law.
Analysis:
This case, along with its companion case United States v. Robinson, establishes a significant bright-line rule that simplifies the 'search incident to arrest' doctrine for law enforcement. It eliminates the need for a case-by-case judicial inquiry into the arresting officer's motives or the specific circumstances of the arrest to determine if a full search is justified. By holding that a lawful custodial arrest automatically authorizes a full search, the Court prioritizes officer safety and evidence preservation over a more nuanced, privacy-protective standard. This ruling has a broad impact, granting police wide discretion to search individuals arrested for even the most minor offenses, thereby diminishing the Fourth Amendment protections for a large category of arrestees.
