Michigan v. DeFillippo
443 U.S. 31 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An arrest made in good-faith reliance on a presumptively valid ordinance is lawful under the Fourth Amendment, even if the ordinance is subsequently declared unconstitutional. Evidence obtained from a search incident to such an arrest is therefore admissible.
Facts:
- Around 10 p.m., Detroit police officers responded to a call about two people appearing to be intoxicated in an alley.
- The officers found Gary DeFillippo and a young woman, who was in the process of lowering her slacks to relieve herself.
- When an officer asked DeFillippo for identification, he first claimed to be "Sergeant Mash" of the Detroit Police Department.
- When asked again, DeFillippo changed his answer, stating that he either worked for or knew Sergeant Mash.
- At the time, a Detroit ordinance made it unlawful for a person stopped by police under reasonable suspicion to refuse to identify himself.
- The officers arrested DeFillippo for violating this identification ordinance.
- A search of DeFillippo following the arrest revealed marihuana and a tinfoil packet containing phencyclidine.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary DeFillippo was charged with possession of a controlled substance in a Michigan trial court.
- At the preliminary examination, DeFillippo's motion to suppress the drug evidence was denied by the trial court.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, granted an interlocutory appeal.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the Detroit ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and that the arrest and subsequent search were therefore invalid.
- The Michigan Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied the State's request for leave to appeal.
- The State of Michigan petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted 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:
Is an arrest valid under the Fourth Amendment when it is made in good-faith reliance on a city ordinance that is subsequently declared unconstitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. An arrest made in good-faith reliance on an ordinance that is presumptively valid at the time is not rendered invalid by a subsequent judicial determination of the ordinance's unconstitutionality. The arresting officer had abundant probable cause to believe that DeFillippo's conduct violated the plain terms of the ordinance. The validity of an arrest is judged by the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time, and police officers are not required to anticipate that a court will later invalidate a law they are charged with enforcing. The purpose of the exclusionary rule—to deter police misconduct—would not be served by suppressing evidence obtained during a search incident to an arrest that was lawful when made. This situation is distinct from cases where a statute itself directly authorizes an unconstitutional search, as the ordinance here defined a substantive offense, and a separate general statute authorized the arrest for committing that offense.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
No. The arrest and subsequent search were unconstitutional because the underlying ordinance was patently unconstitutional. The proper focus is not the officer's good faith, but whether the State, through the combined actions of its legislature and police, violated the respondent's Fourth Amendment rights. The ordinance is unconstitutional because it criminalizes the exercise of a constitutional right—the right to remain silent during a police stop based only on reasonable suspicion. The State cannot benefit from its own unconstitutional act by using a "legislative legerdemain" to create a crime out of constitutionally protected conduct and then use that pretext to conduct searches. The State is responsible for the unconstitutional law, and evidence gathered through its enforcement must be suppressed.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes. While the majority opinion is correct, there is a legitimate concern that police could use such 'stop-and-identify' ordinances pretextually to arrest and search individuals without ever prosecuting them under the ordinance. If a defendant could show that police habitually arrest but do not prosecute under such an ordinance, this would rebut the claim of good-faith reliance, and the evidence obtained could be suppressed. However, there was no evidence of such a pretextual scheme in this case.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial good-faith principle for police officers who rely on the validity of substantive criminal statutes. It draws a key distinction between statutes that define criminal conduct and those that authorize unconstitutional search procedures, shielding arrests under the former from subsequent invalidation. The case significantly strengthens the idea that the exclusionary rule's primary purpose is to deter police misconduct, not to punish reasonable reliance on existing law, thereby foreshadowing the broader good-faith exception later established in United States v. Leon.
