United States v. Di Re
332 U.S. 581 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual's mere presence in a vehicle with another person, for whom police have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, does not, without more, provide probable cause for the individual's arrest and search. The authority to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile does not automatically extend to searching its occupants.
Facts:
- An informant, Reed, told an Office of Price Administration investigator he was going to buy counterfeit gasoline ration coupons from a man named Buttitta at a specific location in Buffalo, New York.
- The investigator and a local police detective followed Buttitta’s car to the designated meeting place.
- They found the car parked with three occupants: Buttitta in the driver's seat, Michael Di Re in the front passenger seat, and Reed in the back seat.
- The officers approached the car and saw Reed holding two counterfeit gasoline ration coupons.
- When questioned, Reed stated that he had obtained the coupons from Buttitta.
- Reed did not implicate Di Re in the transaction.
- The officers took all three men into custody and to the police station.
- At the station, a search of Di Re's person revealed 100 counterfeit gasoline ration coupons hidden in his underwear.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Di Re was charged with knowingly possessing counterfeit gasoline ration coupons in violation of a federal statute.
- At his trial in the federal District Court, the coupons found on his person were admitted into evidence over his objection.
- Di Re was convicted by the trial court.
- Di Re appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing the evidence was obtained via an illegal arrest and search.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the arrest and search of Di Re were illegal.
- The United States (the Government) petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision, which the Court 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 an individual's mere presence in a vehicle with another person, whom police have probable cause to believe has just committed a crime, provide probable cause to arrest and search that individual?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Jackson
No. An individual's mere presence in a suspected vehicle does not strip them of the constitutional immunities from search of their person to which they would otherwise be entitled. The government presented two theories to justify the search, both of which fail. First, the right to search a vehicle under the automobile exception established in Carroll v. United States does not automatically confer a right to search its occupants. A warrantless search of a car does not provide greater latitude to search occupants than a search of a house with a warrant would. Second, the search cannot be justified as incident to a lawful arrest because there was no probable cause to arrest Di Re. The validity of a warrantless arrest for a federal offense is determined by the law of the state where the arrest occurs, in this case, New York. Under that standard, Di Re's mere presence was insufficient to establish probable cause. The government's informant, Reed, specifically identified Buttitta as the perpetrator and did not incriminate Di Re, which weakened, rather than strengthened, any suspicion against him. An inference of guilt cannot be drawn from Di Re's failure to protest his arrest, nor can a search be retroactively justified by what it uncovers.
Dissenting - The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Black
The opinion does not contain the reasoning for the dissent, only a note that The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Black dissent.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by reinforcing the principle of individualized suspicion. It establishes that probable cause cannot be based on mere proximity to a suspected criminal or presence at a crime scene, even within the confined space of a car. The decision limits the scope of the automobile exception, preventing it from being used to justify automatic searches of all passengers. This ruling protects individuals from 'guilt by association' and ensures that law enforcement must have specific, articulable facts linking a particular person to criminal activity before an arrest or search can occur.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Di Re