Henry v. United States
361 U.S. 98 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Probable cause for a warrantless arrest requires facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that a crime has been committed; mere suspicion, association with a suspected individual, or the observation of outwardly innocent acts is insufficient to meet this Fourth Amendment standard.
Facts:
- A theft of whisky from an interstate shipment occurred at a Chicago terminal.
- The following day, two FBI agents were investigating the theft in the area.
- The employer of an individual named Pierotti provided the agents with undisclosed information implicating Pierotti in connection with interstate shipments.
- The agents observed Pierotti and the petitioner, Henry, leave a tavern and enter a car.
- The agents followed the car to an alley in a residential area, where Henry exited, entered a gangway, and returned with cartons which he placed in the car.
- After temporarily losing the car, the agents later observed Henry and Pierotti repeat the same actions: driving to the same alley where Henry retrieved more cartons from the same gangway and placed them in the car.
- The agents observed these actions from a distance of 300 feet and could not determine the size, number, or contents of the cartons.
- The agents then followed the car as it drove away and waved it to a stop.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Henry was charged in federal District Court with unlawfully possessing stolen goods from an interstate shipment.
- Henry filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence, arguing it was obtained through an illegal arrest and search.
- The District Court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, Henry was convicted.
- Henry, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's judgment in a divided decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Henry's petition 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 the observation by federal agents of a man carrying cartons from a residential building, combined with the man's association with an individual vaguely suspected of involvement with interstate shipments, constitute probable cause to justify a warrantless arrest and subsequent search of his vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. The agents' observations did not constitute probable cause for an arrest. An arrest occurred the moment the agents stopped the car and restricted the occupants' liberty of movement. At that time, the agents only possessed a vague, uncorroborated tip about Henry's companion, Pierotti, and had observed Henry engaging in acts that were outwardly innocent, such as carrying cartons from a residential building. Probable cause cannot be based on mere suspicion, rumor, or guilt by association. The standard requires that a prudent person, based on the facts known at the time of the arrest, would believe a crime had been committed. An arrest cannot be justified by what a subsequent search reveals.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
Yes. Probable cause existed to justify the agents' actions. The stop of the car should not be considered the moment of arrest, but rather an investigatory stop warranted by the suspicious activities the agents had observed over a prolonged surveillance. Probable cause for the arrest and search developed after the stop, when agents overheard Henry's incriminating statements and saw cartons with interstate shipping labels inside the car. The combination of the initial surveillance, the stop, the questioning, and the observation of the labeled cartons provided indisputable probable cause to believe a crime was in progress. The majority's holding places an undue burden on law enforcement's ability to investigate and prevent crime.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures by clarifying that an arrest occurs when law enforcement significantly restricts an individual's freedom of movement, not just upon formal booking. It establishes a crucial precedent that outwardly innocent conduct, even if deemed suspicious by an officer, does not amount to probable cause. The ruling strengthens the barrier against arrests based on mere suspicion or association, forcing law enforcement to have more concrete, particularized evidence of criminal activity before making a warrantless arrest. It underscores the principle that the fruits of a search cannot retroactively justify an unlawful arrest.
Unlock the full brief for Henry v. United States