Texas v. Brown
460 U.S. 730 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment's 'plain view' doctrine, a warrantless seizure of an item is permissible when an officer is lawfully in a position to view the item and has probable cause to believe that the item is contraband or evidence of a crime. The 'immediately apparent' requirement of the doctrine is satisfied by this probable cause standard and does not require near certainty.
Facts:
- During a routine driver's license checkpoint at night, Fort Worth police officer Tom Maples stopped a car driven by Clifford James Brown.
- Maples shined his flashlight into the car and observed Brown withdraw his hand from his pants pocket.
- Caught between Brown's fingers was an opaque, green party balloon, knotted near the tip.
- Brown dropped the balloon onto the seat beside him and opened the glove compartment.
- Based on his experience, Officer Maples was aware that narcotics were frequently packaged in this manner.
- Maples then saw several small plastic vials, loose white powder, and an open bag of party balloons inside the open glove compartment.
- After Brown admitted he did not have his driver's license, Maples reached into the car and seized the green balloon, which he felt contained a powdery substance.
Procedural Posture:
- Clifford James Brown was convicted of heroin possession in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, a state trial court.
- Brown appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal cases.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the seizure of the balloon violated the Fourth Amendment because it was not 'immediately apparent' that it contained contraband.
- The State of Texas, the petitioner, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
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 a police officer's seizure of a closed, opaque container seen in plain view during a lawful traffic stop violate the Fourth Amendment if the officer has probable cause, but not certainty, to believe the container holds contraband?
Opinions:
Plurality - Justice Rehnquist
No. The seizure of the balloon does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the plain view doctrine requires only probable cause, not certainty, that an item is associated with criminal activity. The phrase 'immediately apparent' from Coolidge v. New Hampshire does not impose a requirement of near certainty, but is rather an application of the probable cause standard. Probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard based on the totality of the circumstances. In this case, Officer Maples' lawful position during the traffic stop, his experience recognizing that knotted balloons are used to carry narcotics, and his corroborating observation of vials, powder, and more balloons in the glove compartment were sufficient to establish probable cause that the green balloon contained an illicit substance. Therefore, the warrantless seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Concurring - Justice White
No. I join the plurality opinion but write separately to reiterate my disagreement with the 'inadvertence' requirement for plain-view seizures articulated in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, a requirement the Court does not endorse today.
Concurring - Justice Powell
No. The judgment is correct because Officer Maples clearly had probable cause to seize the balloon under the established plain view framework from Coolidge. The officer's training and experience, combined with the unlikelihood of any innocent reason to carry a balloon in that manner, established probable cause. However, I do not join the plurality opinion because it appears to diminish the importance of the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment and unnecessarily casts doubt on the well-accepted Coolidge formulation.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. The seizure of the balloon was justified because the officer had probable cause, but the analysis is incomplete. A distinction must be made between the seizure of a container and the search of its contents. While the seizure was permissible based on probable cause, a separate justification is needed for the warrantless search (opening the balloon). This search could be justified under the automobile exception established in United States v. Ross or if the balloon is considered a 'single-purpose container' from which its contents can be inferred with virtual certainty. Because the lower court did not conduct these fact-bound inquiries, I concur only in the judgment to remand the case.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the 'plain view' doctrine by holding that the 'immediately apparent' requirement is satisfied by the standard of probable cause. This holding resolved confusion among lower courts, some of which had interpreted 'immediately apparent' to mean that an officer needed near certainty about the incriminating nature of an object. By lowering the standard to probable cause, the Court provided law enforcement with a more practical and flexible rule, reinforcing that an officer's training and experience are critical in assessing the totality of the circumstances. The decision strengthens the ability of police to seize suspicious items encountered during lawful activities without a warrant.
Unlock the full brief for Texas v. Brown