Yes, police can search the car for their safety. The rule that lets police pat down a suspicious person for weapons should also apply to the area in the car they could easily reach. Traffic stops can be really dangerous for officers. A suspect could grab a weapon from the car, so it's reasonable for police to check for weapons if they believe the person is dangerous. Here, Long was driving erratically, seemed intoxicated, and had a knife in plain sight, which gave the police a good reason to be worried for their safety.

No, this goes too far. The rule allowing a quick pat-down was only meant for a person's outer clothing, not for searching an entire car. The Court is stretching a very specific rule to cover a much bigger invasion of privacy. A search of a car is a big deal, and it should require a stronger reason, like having enough evidence for an arrest (which is called 'probable cause'). This decision gives police too much power to search cars during simple traffic stops.

The U.S. Supreme Court shouldn't have even heard this case. The Michigan Supreme Court made its decision based on both Michigan law and U.S. law. When a state's highest court gives its citizens *more* rights than the U.S. Constitution requires, the U.S. Supreme Court should stay out of it. The Court is overstepping its bounds by telling a state it was too generous in protecting its own citizen's rights.

Yes, the search of the car for weapons was okay. The deputies had good reasons to think Long was dangerous and could grab a weapon in the car. They only searched places where a weapon could be hidden, which is allowed under the rules from an earlier case called Terry v. Ohio. The Michigan Supreme Court was wrong because it based its decision on federal law, not its own state's laws. The Supreme Court has said many times that traffic stops are very dangerous for police, so protective searches are okay when the police reasonably think there's danger.

I agree the Supreme Court can decide this case, but I don't agree with making a new rule that assumes the Supreme Court has the power to review cases from state courts. It's good to have the same federal criminal laws everywhere, but this new approach could cause problems and lead to giving opinions on things not really in the case.

The Court says the car search was okay based on the Terry v. Ohio case. I disagree. Terry doesn't support the Court's conclusion and the other cases they point to don't fit. The Court is just twisting the Terry decision and using it in the wrong way to go against the Fourth Amendment's rule that searches and seizures need probable cause. The Court's decision is scary in what it could lead to.

The big questions in this case are about the relationship between Michigan and the federal government, not just whether this particular search broke the Fourth Amendment. The Court's choice to expand its power over state court cases goes against its earlier decisions and doesn't show enough respect for state courts.

Yes, it is okay for police to search parts of a car for weapons if they think the driver is dangerous. I agree the Supreme Court can decide this case, but I don't agree with making a new rule that assumes the Supreme Court has the power to review cases from state courts. It's good to have the same federal criminal laws everywhere, but this new approach could cause problems and lead to giving opinions on things not really in the case.

No, it is not okay for police to search parts of a car for weapons just because they think the driver is dangerous. The Court says the car search was okay based on the Terry v. Ohio case. I disagree. Terry doesn't support the Court's conclusion and the other cases they point to don't fit. The Court is just twisting the Terry decision and using it in the wrong way to go against the Fourth Amendment's rule that searches and seizures need probable cause. The Court's decision is scary in what it could lead to.

A "search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on `specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant'the officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous …

"[W] hen... a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, we will accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal …

If an independent state law basis is not clearly apparent from a state court's opinion, the United States Supreme Court will treat the decision as if based solely on federal law.

To be "independent," the state law ground for decision must not be "interwoven with the federal law."

"If the state court decision indicates clearly and expressly that it is alternatively based on bona fide separate, adequate, and independent grounds, we, of course, will not undertake to review the decision."

—the United States Supreme Court set forth the principles applicable to a search of a passenger compartment of a vehicle for weapons: Our past cases indicate... that protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger, that roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially …

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that traffic stops are "especially fraught with danger to police officers."

The Fourth Amendment permits "the protective sweep... if the searching officer possesse [d] a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [ed] the officer in believing that the area swept harbored an individual posing a danger to the officer or others."

The United States Supreme Court has also found that, during an investigative stop, a police officer who possesses a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and may gain access to weapons may conduct a protective search of the interior of the vehicle for weapons.

Yes, the Fourth Amendment permits a protective search of a vehicle's passenger compartment under these circumstances. The principles of Terry v. Ohio, which allow a protective frisk of a person based on reasonable suspicion of danger, can be extended to the area within a suspect's immediate control in a vehicle. Roadside encounters are inherently dangerous, and a suspect could gain access to a weapon in the car either by breaking away from police or by being allowed to return to the car after the stop concludes. Therefore, if officers have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a suspect is dangerous, they may conduct a limited search of the vehicle's passenger compartment for weapons to ensure their safety. In this case, Long's erratic driving, apparent intoxication, and the presence of a knife in the car justified the officers' reasonable belief that he posed a danger, making the protective search of the car permissible.

No, the protective search of the vehicle was not reasonable under the principles of Terry. Terry only authorizes a carefully limited search of a person's outer clothing for weapons, not an expansive 'area search' of a car's interior. The majority improperly relies on cases like Chimel v. California and New York v. Belton, which apply to searches incident to a lawful custodial arrest based on probable cause, a much higher standard than the reasonable suspicion at issue here. By applying principles from the arrest context to a Terry stop, the Court dangerously expands a narrow exception and erodes the Fourth Amendment's general requirement that searches be based on probable cause. The intrusion into a vehicle is different in kind, not just degree, from a pat-down and cannot be justified by the same 'balancing' test.

The Court should not have exercised jurisdiction in this case. The Michigan Supreme Court's decision rested on both the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Constitution, presenting an adequate and independent state ground that should preclude federal review. The majority creates a new, improper presumption in favor of federal jurisdiction, holding that it will assume jurisdiction unless the state court makes a 'plain statement' that its decision rests on independent state grounds. This approach disrespects the sovereignty of state courts and expands this Court's role beyond vindicating federal rights to correcting state courts that may have 'overprotected' their own citizens. The primary role of the Supreme Court should be to ensure federal rights are vindicated, not to review cases where a state provides greater protection to its citizens than federal law requires.

No. The protective search of the passenger compartment was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry v. Ohio and other decisions of this Court. The officers had an articulable suspicion that Long was dangerous and might access weapons within the vehicle. The search was limited to areas where a weapon might be hidden and was thus consistent with the principles of Terry. The decision of the Michigan Supreme Court is reversed because it rested primarily on an interpretation of federal law, not an independent state ground. This Court has repeatedly noted that traffic stops are especially fraught with danger to police officers, justifying protective searches when there is a reasonable belief of danger.

While I am satisfied that the Court has jurisdiction in this particular case, I do not join the Court in fashioning a new presumption of jurisdiction over cases coming here from state courts. Although I agree that uniformity in federal criminal law is desirable, I see little efficiency and an increased danger of advisory opinions in the Court's new approach.

The Court today holds that the protective search of the passenger compartment was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry v. Ohio. I disagree. Terry does not support the Court's conclusion and the reliance on other decisions is misplaced. The Court is simply continuing the process of distorting Terry beyond recognition and forcing it into service as an unlikely weapon against the Fourth Amendment's fundamental requirement that searches and seizures be based on probable cause. The implications of the Court's decision are frightening.

The jurisprudential questions presented in this case are far more important than the question whether the Michigan police officer's search of respondent's car violated the Fourth Amendment. The case raises profoundly significant questions concerning the relationship between two sovereigns - the State of Michigan and the United States of America. The Court's decision to expand its jurisdiction is not supported by precedent and does not show proper respect for state courts.

Michigan v. Long

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot