Virginia v. Moore

Supreme Court of United States
553 U.S. 164, 128 S. Ct. 1598 (2008)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A warrantless arrest based on probable cause is constitutionally reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and a search incident to that arrest is permissible, even if the arrest itself violates a state law that provides greater privacy protections.

Facts:

Portsmouth police officers learned that David Lee Moore was driving with a suspended license.
The officers confirmed Moore's license was suspended and stopped his car.
Under Virginia law, driving on a suspended license is a misdemeanor for which officers should generally issue a summons rather than make a custodial arrest.
Disregarding the state law preference for a summons, the officers arrested Moore for the offense.
In a search incident to Moore's arrest, officers discovered he was carrying 16 grams of crack cocaine and $516 in cash.

Procedural Posture:

David Lee Moore was charged in a Virginia trial court with possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.
Moore filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the search incident to his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment.
The trial court denied the motion and, following a bench trial, found Moore guilty.
On appeal, a panel of the Virginia Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding a Fourth Amendment violation.
The Virginia Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, vacated the panel's decision and reinstated the conviction.
Moore appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which reversed the en banc court, holding that the arrest violated state law and therefore the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
The Commonwealth of Virginia successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

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 violate the Fourth Amendment by making an arrest that is based on probable cause but is prohibited by state law?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Scalia

No. A warrantless arrest for a crime committed in an officer's presence does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the officer has probable cause, even if the arrest is prohibited by state law. The reasonableness of a seizure under the Fourth Amendment is determined by a uniform, federal constitutional standard, not by the varying laws of individual states. Historical analysis shows the Fourth Amendment was not intended to incorporate state statutes, and precedent establishes that states may provide protections beyond the Fourth Amendment, but these additional protections do not alter the federal constitutional floor. Linking the Fourth Amendment to state law would create an unpredictable and unworkable standard. Because Moore's arrest was constitutionally permissible based on probable cause, the subsequent search incident to that arrest was also valid under the precedent of United States v. Robinson.

Concurring - Justice Ginsburg

The judgment is correct, but for a different reason. While Virginia law, which provided greater protection than the Fourth Amendment, was violated, Virginia itself chose not to require the suppression of evidence as a remedy for this specific violation. The Fourth Amendment does not compel a state to adopt the exclusionary rule for violations of its own, more-protective state laws. Therefore, because the arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the state-law violation does not trigger suppression under Virginia law, the evidence is admissible.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a clear separation between the Fourth Amendment's requirements and state-level arrest procedures. It solidifies the principle that probable cause is the sole constitutional touchstone for the reasonableness of an arrest, creating a uniform national standard. The ruling prevents the federal exclusionary rule from being used to enforce state statutes, placing the onus on states to create their own remedies (like statutory suppression or civil liability) for violations of laws that are more protective than the federal Constitution. This gives law enforcement officers a clear, bright-line rule, ensuring that a constitutionally sound arrest is not invalidated by a violation of a complex state procedural rule.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Virginia v. Moore (2008)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature