United States v. Place
462 U.S. 696 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a canine sniff of personal luggage is not a search under the Fourth Amendment, the temporary detention of such property based on reasonable suspicion is a seizure and violates the Fourth Amendment if its duration is unreasonable, considering the diligence of police and the intrusion on the individual's liberty and possessory interests.
Facts:
- At Miami International Airport, law enforcement officers' suspicions were aroused by the behavior of Raymond J. Place.
- The officers approached Place, who consented to a search of his two suitcases, but they did not proceed as his flight was about to depart.
- After Place left, agents inspected his luggage tags, noted discrepancies in the street addresses, and discovered neither address existed.
- Miami agents relayed their suspicions to Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents in New York, Place's destination.
- At La Guardia Airport in New York, DEA agents observed Place, whose behavior they also found suspicious.
- After Place claimed his bags, the agents approached him; he refused to consent to a search of his luggage.
- The agents told Place they were taking his luggage to a federal judge for a warrant and that he was free to leave.
- The agents transported the luggage from La Guardia to Kennedy Airport, where a narcotics detection dog performed a sniff test approximately 90 minutes after the seizure, alerting to one of the bags.
- Agents retained the luggage over the weekend and, on Monday, secured a warrant, finding cocaine inside.
Procedural Posture:
- Place was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
- Place filed a motion in the District Court to suppress the contents of the luggage, which the court denied.
- Place pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- Place, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the seizure of the luggage was unconstitutional.
- The United States, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from 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 90-minute seizure of a traveler's personal luggage from their immediate possession, based on reasonable suspicion, for the purpose of a canine sniff test, constitute an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes. While law enforcement may briefly detain personal luggage based on reasonable suspicion for an investigative purpose like a canine sniff, the 90-minute detention of Place's luggage was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment. The principles of Terry v. Ohio, which permit brief investigative stops of persons on reasonable suspicion, can be extended to temporary detentions of personal property. Furthermore, a canine sniff by a trained narcotics detection dog is not a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it is sui generis, minimally intrusive, and discloses only the presence of contraband. However, the detention of luggage is a seizure that implicates both the owner's possessory interest in the property and their liberty interest in proceeding with their travel. The reasonableness of such a seizure depends on its scope and duration. The 90-minute length of this detention was excessive, especially since the agents had forewarning of Place's arrival and could have arranged for a more expeditious investigation. The agents' failure to inform Place of the luggage's location, the expected duration of the detention, and arrangements for its return exacerbated the unreasonableness of the seizure.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
Yes, but the Court's reasoning is flawed and overreaching. The judgment should be affirmed solely on the ground that the prolonged seizure of Place's baggage exceeded the permissible limits of an investigative stop. The Court should not have decided the broader constitutional issues of whether Terry principles apply to property seizures or whether a canine sniff constitutes a search, as these issues were not necessary to resolve the case. The Terry exception to the probable-cause requirement is narrowly confined to brief stops of persons and limited frisks for weapons. Seizing personal property independent of a person requires probable cause, and applying a balancing test here dangerously expands Terry's narrow scope and 'swallows the general rule' of the Fourth Amendment.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the detention of Place's luggage was functionally identical to a seizure of his person and was unconstitutional due to its excessive length. However, the majority's opinion is concerning for its broad discussion of Terry seizures and its haste to resolve the dog-sniff issue. The Court shows an 'emerging tendency...to convert the Terry decision into a general statement that the Fourth Amendment requires only that any seizure be reasonable.' The Court should not have decided whether a dog sniff is a search, as the issue was not contested below, briefed by the parties, or necessary for the judgment. Resolving such an important constitutional issue without a full airing in a proper case is imprudent.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing two major Fourth Amendment principles. First, it formally extends the reasonable suspicion standard from Terry v. Ohio to the temporary seizure of personal property, giving law enforcement a new basis for detaining effects short of probable cause. Second, its holding that a canine sniff is not a search created a powerful investigative tool for police that does not require a warrant or probable cause. However, the Court simultaneously limited this new power by holding that the seizure to conduct the sniff must be brief and minimally intrusive, with the 90-minute detention here serving as a benchmark for unreasonableness. This decision thus balances expanded police authority with the protection of individual possessory and liberty interests.
