United States v. Johns
83 L. Ed. 2d 890, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 45, 469 U.S. 478 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
If law enforcement officers have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, they may also conduct a warrantless search of any containers found within that vehicle, even if the search of the containers occurs several days after they have been seized and removed from the vehicle.
Facts:
- Pursuant to a drug smuggling investigation, U.S. Customs officers conducted surveillance on two pickup trucks that traveled from a residence in Tucson to a remote desert airstrip.
- At the airstrip, officers observed the trucks meet with two small aircraft.
- After the planes departed, officers approached the trucks and detected a strong odor of marihuana.
- Officers saw several large packages wrapped in dark green plastic and sealed with tape in the back of the trucks, a method they knew was common for packaging smuggled marihuana.
- Respondents Duarte, Leon, Gomez, Redmond, and Soto were arrested at the airstrip, and the pilots, Johns and Hearron, were arrested later.
- Instead of searching the trucks at the scene, officers seized them and drove them to Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) headquarters in Tucson.
- The packages were removed from the trucks and placed in a DEA warehouse.
- Three days later, without obtaining a search warrant, DEA agents opened some of the packages and discovered they contained marihuana.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States indicted Johns and other respondents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona for conspiracy to possess and possession of marihuana with intent to distribute.
- Respondents filed a pretrial motion to suppress the marihuana evidence, arguing the warrantless search of the packages was unconstitutional.
- The District Court granted the respondents' motion to suppress.
- The Government, as appellant, appealed the suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the warrantless search conducted three days after the seizure was unreasonable.
- The United States, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by 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 require police to obtain a warrant to search packages seized from a lawfully stopped vehicle if the search is conducted three days after the packages were removed from the vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. The warrantless search of packages seized from a vehicle that officers have probable cause to search is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment simply because the search occurs three days after the packages were removed from the vehicle. The justification to conduct a warrantless vehicle search under the automobile exception does not vanish once the vehicle has been immobilized and its contents secured. Citing United States v. Ross, the Court reasoned that if probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search. This authority is not dependent on the search of the container occurring contemporaneously with the seizure of the vehicle. A contrary rule would only incentivize officers to conduct immediate roadside searches, which offers little practical benefit to privacy interests. As respondents did not prove the delay adversely affected a legitimate privacy or possessory interest, the search was reasonable.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. A warrantless search of closed packages three days after their seizure from an automobile violates the Fourth Amendment. This decision is an unwarranted extension of United States v. Ross. The traditional rationale for the automobile exception—exigency—does not apply to a container that has been seized and held in a secure government warehouse for three days. Once the packages were in police custody, there was no exigency precluding officers from obtaining a warrant. The general rule from United States v. Chadwick requires a warrant to search closed containers, and the presence of the container within a vehicle does not negate this requirement, particularly after such a delay. The majority also improperly opined on the 'plain odor' issue, which was not before the Court and contradicts existing precedent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the temporal scope of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. It clarifies that the authority to conduct a warrantless search of containers found in a vehicle, established in United States v. Ross, is not extinguished simply because the police have secured the vehicle and its contents. By detaching the search from the exigent circumstances of the initial roadside stop, the Court gives law enforcement greater flexibility and discretion in the timing of searches. This ruling reduces the incentive for immediate on-scene searches and places the burden on defendants to show that a delay was unreasonable or prejudiced their privacy interests.
