Illinois v. Andreas
463 U.S. 765, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 106, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1003 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant to reopen a container that was previously subjected to a lawful search, so long as there is no substantial likelihood that the contents of the container have been changed since the initial search.
Facts:
- A large, locked metal container was shipped by air from Calcutta to respondent Andreas in Chicago.
- At O’Hare International Airport, a U.S. customs inspector opened the container and discovered marihuana concealed inside a wooden table.
- The customs inspector notified the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and a special agent chemically confirmed the substance was marihuana.
- The container was resealed, and the next day, a DEA agent and a Chicago police officer, posing as deliverymen, delivered it to Andreas's apartment building.
- Andreas accepted the container and took it inside his apartment, out of the officers' sight.
- Approximately 30 to 45 minutes later, Andreas emerged from his apartment with the container and was immediately arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- Andreas was charged in an Illinois state trial court with possession of controlled substances.
- The trial court granted Andreas’s motion to suppress the marihuana, finding the warrantless reopening of the container unconstitutional.
- The State of Illinois appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District.
- The intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court's suppression order, holding that the police had lost control over the container, thus necessitating a warrant for the second search.
- The State of Illinois then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 Fourth Amendment require police to obtain a warrant to reopen a sealed container after a controlled delivery, where the container was previously opened in a lawful border search that revealed contraband, and was then out of police surveillance for a brief period?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant in this situation because once government officers lawfully open a container and identify its contents as contraband, any legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of that container is lost. The act of resealing the container for a controlled delivery does not restore the owner's privacy rights. Analogizing to the plain-view doctrine, the Court reasoned that once officers are lawfully in a position to observe an item, the owner's privacy interest in that item is extinguished. Therefore, the subsequent reopening of the container is not considered a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment, provided there is no substantial likelihood that the contents have changed during any gap in surveillance. Here, given the unusual nature of the container and the short duration it was out of sight, there was no substantial likelihood that Andreas had altered its contents, so no warrant was required.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. The second opening of the container is unquestionably a 'search' subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The majority wrongly reduces the Fourth Amendment's protection to secrecy alone, ignoring the right to be secure in one's possessions and to be let alone. While the respondent's expectation of secrecy was lost during the initial customs search, his right to maintain the physical integrity of his container was restored once it was delivered to him. The reopening of the container constituted a physical intrusion and a disturbance of his possessory interests, which is a search. The 'substantial likelihood' standard is vague and unworkable, and since officers had ample time and opportunity to obtain a warrant before the second search, their failure to do so rendered the search unreasonable.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The state court's 'absolute certainty' test was too strict, but the majority's analysis is also flawed. The proper standard should be whether there was 'virtual certainty' that the contraband remained in the container, which is a factual determination that should be made by lower courts, not the Supreme Court. While agreeing that the state court's standard was likely too high, the dissent argues against the majority's broad 'no-search' holding and would instead vacate the lower court's judgment and remand the case for reconsideration under a 'virtual certainty' standard.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of Fourth Amendment protection for containers known to hold contraband. By ruling that reopening such a container is not a 'search,' the Court created a new framework that diminishes an individual's expectation of privacy after an initial lawful government inspection. The 'substantial likelihood' test provides law enforcement with considerable discretion in controlled delivery scenarios, potentially reducing the incentive to seek a warrant even when time permits. This case establishes that a once-lost expectation of privacy is not automatically revived simply because an item is temporarily returned to its owner's possession, impacting how future controlled delivery cases are analyzed.
Unlock the full brief for Illinois v. Andreas