United States v. Hensley
469 U.S. 221 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An investigatory stop is permissible under the Fourth Amendment if it is made in objective reliance on a 'wanted flyer' issued by another police department, provided that the issuing department had a reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that the wanted person was involved in a completed felony.
Facts:
- On December 4, 1981, two armed men robbed a tavern in St. Bernard, Ohio.
- Six days later, an informant told St. Bernard police officer Kenneth Davis that Thomas Hensley had driven the getaway car.
- Officer Davis obtained a written statement from the informant and issued a 'wanted flyer' to other police departments in the Cincinnati metropolitan area.
- The flyer stated Hensley was wanted for investigation of aggravated robbery, described him, and warned he should be considered armed and dangerous.
- On December 16, 1981, police officers in the nearby city of Covington, Kentucky, saw Hensley driving a white Cadillac.
- Recalling the flyer, Covington officer Daniel Cope initiated a traffic stop of Hensley's vehicle.
- Cope approached the car with his service revolver drawn and ordered Hensley and his passenger, Albert Green, out of the vehicle.
- A second Covington officer, David Rassache, arrived and saw the butt of a revolver protruding from underneath the passenger's seat, leading to the discovery of two more handguns in the car.
Procedural Posture:
- After state handgun charges were dismissed, Thomas Hensley was indicted by a federal grand jury for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.
- In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (the trial court), Hensley filed a motion to suppress the handguns as evidence, arguing the stop was an unconstitutional seizure.
- The District Court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a bench trial, Hensley was convicted.
- Hensley (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the stop was illegal because it was for a completed crime and not based on the stopping officers' own reasonable suspicion.
- The United States (as petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 permit police officers in one jurisdiction to conduct an investigatory stop of a person in reliance on a 'wanted flyer' issued by another jurisdiction, where the flyer indicates the person is suspected of involvement in a completed felony?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes, the Fourth Amendment permits such a stop. The Court held that the principles of Terry v. Ohio, which allow for brief investigatory stops based on reasonable suspicion, are not limited to ongoing or imminent crimes but extend to completed felonies. The governmental interest in solving serious past crimes and apprehending offenders outweighs the individual's interest in being free from a brief intrusion. Furthermore, police in one jurisdiction can rely on a flyer from another jurisdiction if the issuing department had a reasonable suspicion. Applying the collective knowledge doctrine from Whiteley v. Warden, the admissibility of evidence from the stop turns not on whether the stopping officer knew the underlying facts, but on whether the issuing officer who sought assistance possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
Yes, the stop was permissible. The stop in this case was a brief, minimally intrusive seizure, lasting only moments before reasonable suspicion ripened into probable cause upon the discovery of a firearm. For such seizures, which are substantially less intrusive than a full arrest, the balancing test established in Terry v. Ohio is appropriate. This test properly replaces the general rule requiring probable cause, so long as it is conducted with full regard for the privacy interests at stake. A full-scale arrest, by contrast, would remain governed by the stricter probable-cause standard.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of Terry stops by explicitly authorizing their use for the investigation of completed felonies, not just ongoing or imminent criminal activity. It solidifies the 'collective knowledge' doctrine, allowing law enforcement agencies to rely on each other's bulletins and flyers without independent verification of the underlying facts. This greatly enhances inter-jurisdictional police cooperation, but it also means that the legality of a stop in one city depends on the constitutional sufficiency of a suspicion formed in another, potentially distant, one.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Hensley