Illinois v. Lafayette
Decision Date | 20 June 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 81-1859,81-1859 |
Citation | 77 L.Ed.2d 65,462 U.S. 640,103 S.Ct. 2605 |
Parties | ILLINOIS, Petitioner v. Ralph LAFAYETTE |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
After respondent was arrested for disturbing the peace, he was taken to the police station. There, without obtaining a warrant and in the process of booking him and inventorying his possessions, the police removed the contents of a shoulder bag respondent had been carrying and found amphetamine pills. Respondent was subsequently charged with violating the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, and at a pretrial hearing the trial court ordered suppression of the pills. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the shoulder bag search did not constitute a valid search incident to a lawful arrest or a valid inventory search of respondent's belongings.
Held: The search of respondent's shoulder bag was a valid inventory search. Pp. 643-648.
(a) Consistent with the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for police to search the personal effects of a person under lawful arrest as part of the routine administrative procedure at a police station incident to booking and jailing the suspect. The justification for such searches does not rest on probable cause, and hence the absence of a warrant is immaterial to the reasonableness of the search. Here, every consideration of orderly police administration—protection of a suspect's property, deterrence of false claims of theft against the police, security, and identification of the suspect—benefiting both the police and the public points toward the appropriateness of the examination of respondent's shoulder bag. Pp. 643-647.
(b) The fact that the protection of the public and of respondent's property might have been achieved by less intrusive means does not, in itself, render the search unreasonable. Even if some less intrusive means existed, it would be unreasonable to expect police officers in the everyday course of business to make fine and subtle distinctions in deciding which containers or items may be searched, and which must be sealed without examination as a unit. Pp. 647-648.
99 Ill.App.3d 830, 55 Ill.Dec. 210, 425 N.E.2d 1383, reversed and remanded.
Michael A. Ficaro, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Peter A. Carusona, Ottawa, Ill., for respondent.
The question presented is whether, at the time an arrested person arrives at a police station, the police may, without obtaining a warrant, search a shoulder bag carried by that person.
On September 1, 1980, at about 10 p.m., Officer Maurice Mietzner of the Kankakee City Police arrived at the Town Cinema in Kankakee, Illinois, in response to a call about a disturbance. There he found respondent involved in an altercation with the theatre manager. He arrested respondent for disturbing the peace, handcuffed him, and took him to the police station. Respondent carried a purse-type shoulder bag on the trip to the station.
At the police station respondent was taken to the booking room; there, Officer Mietzner removed the handcuffs from respondent and ordered him to empty his pockets and place the contents on the counter. After doing so, espondent took a package of cigarettes from his shoulder bag and placed the bag on the counter. Mietzner then removed the contents of the bag, and found ten amphetamine pills inside a cigarette case package.
Respondent was subsequently charged with violating Section 402(b) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 561/2, ¶ 1402(b), on the basis of the controlled substances found in his shoulder bag. A pretrial suppression hearing was held at which the State argued that the search of the shoulder bag was a valid inventory search under South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). Officer Mietzner testified that he examined the bag's contents because it was standard procedure to inventory "everything" in the possession of an arrested person. App. 15, 16. He testified that he was not seeking and did not expect to find drugs or weapons when he searched the bag and he conceded that the shoulder bag was small enough that it could have been placed and sealed in a bag, container or locker for protective purposes. Id., at 15. After the hearing, but before any ruling, the State submitted a brief in which it argued for the first time that the search was valid as a delayed search incident to arrest. Thereafter, the trial court ordered the suppression of the amphetamine pills. Id., at 22.
On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed. 99 Ill.App.3d 830, 55 Ill.Dec. 210, 425 N.E.2d 1383 (3d Dist.1981). It first held that the State had waived the argument that the search was incident to a valid arrest by failing to raise that argument at the suppression hearing. Id., at 832, 55 Ill.Dec., at 212, 425 N.E.2d, at 1385. However, the court went on to discuss and reject the State's argument: "[E]ven assuming, arguendo, that the State has not waived this argument, the stationhouse search of the shoulder bag did not constitute a valid search incident to a lawful arrest." Id., at 833, 55 Ill.Dec., at 212, 425 N.E.2d, at 1385.
The State court also held that the search was not a valid inventory of respondent's belongings. It purported to dis- tinguish South Dakota v. Opperman, supra, on the basis that there is a greater privacy interest in a purse-type shoulder bag than in an automobile, and that the State's legitimate interests could have been met in a less intrusive manner, by "sealing [the shoulder bag] within a plastic bag or box and placing it in a secured locker." 99 Ill.App.3d, at 834-835, 55 Ill.Dec., at 213, 425 N.E.2d, at 1386. The Illinois court concluded:
"Therefore, the postponed warrantless search of the [respondent's] shoulder bag was neither incident to his lawful arrest nor a valid inventory of his belongings, and thus, violated the fourth amendment." Id., at 835, 55 Ill.Dec., at 213, 425 N.E.2d, at 1386.
The Illinois Supreme Court denied discretionary review. App. to Pet. for Cert. B-1. We granted certiorari, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 339, 75 L.Ed.2d 381 (1982), because of the frequency with which this question confronts police and courts, and we reverse.
The question here is whether, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for police to search the personal effects of a person under lawful arrest as part of the routine administrative procedure at a police stationhouse incident to booking and jailing the suspect. The justification for such searches does not rest on probable cause, and hence the absence of a warrant is immaterial to the reasonableness of the search. Indeed, we have previously established that the inventory search constitutes a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement. See South Dakota v. Opperman, supra. The Illinois court and respondent rely on United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977), and Arkansa v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979); in the former, we noted that "probable cause to search is irrelevant" in inventory searches and went on to state:
"This is so because the salutary functions of a warrant simply have no application in that context; the constitu- tional reasonableness of inventory searches must be determined on other bases." Id., 433 U.S., at 10 n. 5, 97 S.Ct., at 2483 n. 5.1
A so-called inventory search is not an independent legal concept but rather an incidental administrative step following arrest and preceding incarceration. To determine whether the search of respondent's shoulder bag was unreasonable we must "balanc[e] its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests." Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1396, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979).
In order to see an inventory search in proper perspective, it is necessary to study the evolution of interests along the continuum from arrest to incarceration. We have held that immediately upon arrest an officer may lawfully search the person of an arrestee, United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); he may also search the area within the arrestee's immediate control, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). We explained the basis for this doctrine in United States v. Robinson, supra, where we said:
414 U.S., at 235, 94 S.Ct., at 477 (emphasis added).
An arrested person is not invariably taken to a police station or confined; if an arrestee is taken to the police station, that is no more than a continuation of the custody inherent in the arrest status. Nonetheless, the factors justifying a search of the person and personal effects of an arrestee upon reaching a police station but prior to being placed in confinement are somewhat...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Hovey
...closed containers are constitutionally permissible if conducted as part of the booking process. (Illinois v. Lafayette (1983) 462 U.S. 640, 643-648, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 2608-2611, 77 L.Ed.2d 65.) The high court observed that such a thorough inventory was supported by a "range of governmental in......
-
Langford v. Superior Court
...60 L.Ed.2d 824 (conc. opn. of White, J.); see also id., at pp. 213-214, 99 S.Ct. at pp. 2257-2258; Illinois v. Lafayette (1983) 462 U.S. 640, 647-649, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 2610-2611, 77 L.Ed.2d 65; see generally LaFave, The Fourth Amendment in an Imperfect World: On Drawing "Bright Lines" and "G......
-
U.S. v. Crisp
...of the well-defined exceptions to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Id.; Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983). Inventory searches were developed to respond to three distinct needs: (1) the protection of the owner's prop......
-
State v. Wright
...see Colorado v. Bertine , 479 U.S. 367, 376, 107 S. Ct. 738, 743, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987) ; Illinois v. Lafayette , 462 U.S. 640, 648–49, 103 S. Ct. 2605, 2611, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983) ; South Dakota v. Opperman , 428 U.S. 364, 376, 96 S. Ct. 3092, 3100, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). In considering th......
-
Search and Seizure: Persons
...prohibits unreasonable searches incident to arrest. McGee v. State, 105 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983). The initial burden of proof is on a defendant when he seeks to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a wa......
-
The Supreme Court giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away: the century of Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" doctrine.
...safety/administrative rationale when it endorsed inventory searches of the person and possessions of arrestee in Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983). In addition, in the 1983 decision Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983), the Burger Court permitted an inventory search of an auto to be......
-
Special needs' and other fourth amendment searches
...are permitted. See, e.g ., Wis. Statutes §968.255. Strip searches must be conducted in a private location. See Illinois v. Lafayette , 462 U.S. 640 (1983) (permitting such searches during routine jail admissions and noting these would be unreasonable if conducted on the street). Courts have......
-
Search and Seizure: Persons
...prohibits unreasonable searches incident to arrest. McGee v. State, 105 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983). The initial burden of proof is on a defendant when he seeks to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a wa......