Smith v. Ohio
108 L. Ed. 2d 464, 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1198, 110 S. Ct. 1288 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search that provides the probable cause for an arrest cannot be justified as a search incident to that arrest; the justification for the arrest must precede the search.
Facts:
- Two plainclothes officers in an unmarked vehicle observed petitioner, Smith, and a companion exit a private residence.
- Smith was carrying a brown paper grocery bag in a manner the officers described as 'gingerly.'
- One officer, Thomas, exited the vehicle, did not identify himself, and asked Smith to 'come here a minute.'
- When Smith did not respond and kept walking, Officer Thomas identified himself as a police officer.
- Smith then threw the bag onto the hood of his car and turned to face the officer.
- Smith attempted to protect the bag from the officer's inspection.
- Officer Thomas pushed Smith's hand away, opened the bag, and discovered drug paraphernalia inside.
Procedural Posture:
- Based on the drug paraphernalia found in the bag, Smith was convicted of drug abuse in an Ohio trial court.
- The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
- A divided Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the search was constitutional because its fruits justified the subsequent arrest.
- Smith filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
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's exception for a search incident to a lawful arrest permit a warrantless search of a suspect's property when the fruits of that search are used to provide the probable cause for the subsequent arrest?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The Fourth Amendment does not permit a search to precede an arrest and serve as part of the arrest's justification. The Ohio Supreme Court's reasoning, which justified the arrest by the search and the search by the arrest, is a circular logic that is impermissible under the Fourth Amendment. Citing Sibron v. New York, the court affirmed the 'axiomatic' principle that a search incident to arrest may not come before the arrest and provide its justification. The exception for searches incident to arrest applies only after a lawful arrest has been made. The Court also rejected the state's argument that Smith had abandoned the bag, finding that a citizen who throws property onto a car to respond to a police inquiry and then attempts to protect it has not abandoned it.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
This opinion does not address the merits of the Fourth Amendment question. Justice Marshall dissented on procedural grounds, arguing that the Court should not have used a summary disposition to decide the case. He believed that deciding cases without full briefing and oral argument deprives litigants of a fair hearing and increases the risk of an erroneous decision, even though he agreed the Ohio Supreme Court likely erred.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms a core tenet of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: the police cannot use the fruits of a search to retroactively justify that search. By rejecting a circular justification for a search incident to arrest, the Court prevents this exception from swallowing the warrant requirement. The decision clarifies the required chronological and causal relationship between a lawful arrest and an incidental search, ensuring that police must have independent probable cause to arrest before conducting such a search. This serves as a significant check on police authority to conduct speculative searches of individuals.
