United States v. Robinson 8212 936

Decision Date11 December 1973
Docket NumberNo. 72,72
CitationUnited States v. Robinson 8212 936, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973)
PartiesUNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Willie ROBINSON, Jr. —936
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Having, as a result of a previous check of respondent's operator's permit, probable cause to arrest respondent for driving while his license was revoked, a police officer made a full-custody arrest of respondent for such offense.In accordance with prescribed procedures, the officer made a search of respondent's person, in the course of which he found in a coat pocket a cigarette package containing heroin.The heroin was admitted into evidence at the District Court trial, which resulted in respondent's conviction for a drug offense.The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the heroin had been obtained as a result of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.Held: In the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a 'reasonable' search under that Amendment.Pp. 224—237.

(a) A search incident to a valid arrest is not limited to a frisk of the suspect's outer clothing and removal of such weapons as the arresting officer may, as a result of such frisk, reasonably believe and ascertain that the suspect has in his possession, and the absence of probable fruits or further evidence of the particular crime for which the arrest is made does not narrow the standards applicable to such a search.Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 distinguished.Pp. 227 229; 234—235.

(b) A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment and a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification, such as the probability in a particular arrest situation that weapons or evidence would in fact be found upon the suspect's person; and whether or not there was present one of the reasons supporting the authority for a search of the person incident to a lawful arrest need not be litigated in each case.Pp. 235.

(c) Since the custodial arrest here gave rise to the authority to search, it is immaterial that the arresting officer did not fear the respondent or suspect that he was armed.P. 236—237.

153 U.S.App.D.C. 114, 471 F.2d 1082, reversed.

Allan A. Tuttle, Raleigh, N.C., for petitioner.

Joseph V. Gartlan, Jr., Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice REHNQUISTdelivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Robinson was convicted in United States District Court for the District of Columbia of the possession and facilitation of concealment of heroin in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a)(1964 ed.), and 21 U.S.C. § 174(1964 ed.).He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment for these offenses.On his appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir- cuit, that court first remanded the case to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing concerning the scope of the search of respondent's person which had occurred at the time of his arrest.145 U.S.App.D.C. 46, 447 F.2d 1215(1971).The District Court made findings of fact and conclusions of law adverse to respondent, and he again appealed.This time the Court of Appeals en banc reversed the judgment of conviction, holding that the heroin introduced in evidence against respondent had been obtained as a result of a search which violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.153 U.S.App.D.C. 114, 471 F.2d 1082(1972).We granted certiorari, 410 U.S. 982, 93 S.Ct. 1500, 36 L.Ed.2d 177(1973), and set the case for argument together with Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456, also decided today.

On April 23, 1968, at approximately 11 p.m., Officer Richard Jenks, a 15-year veteran of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, observed the respondent driving a 1965 Cadillac near the intersection of 8th and C Streets, N.E., in the District of Columbia.Jenks, as a result of previous investigation following a check of respondent's operator's permit four days earlier, determined there was reason to believe that respondent was operating a motor vehicle after the revocation of his operator's permit.This is an offense defined by statute in the District of Columbia which carries a mandatory minimum jail term, a mandatory minimum fine, or both.D.C.Code Ann. § 40—302(d)(1967).

Jenks signaled respondent to stop the automobile, which respondent did, and all three of the occupants emerged from the car.At that point Jenks informed respondent that he was under arrest for 'operating after revocation and obtaining a permit by misrepresentation.'It was assumed by the Court of Appeals, and is conceded by the respondent here, that Jenks had probable cause to arrest respondent, and that he effected a fullcustody arrest.1

In accordance with procedures prescribed in police department instructions, 2 Jenks then began to search respondent.He explained at a subsequent hearing that he was 'face-to-face' with the respondent, and 'placed (his) hands on (the respondent), my righ-hand to his left breast like this (demonstrating) and proceeded to pat him down thus (with the right hand).'During this patdown, Jenks felt an object in the left breast pocket of the heavy coat respondent was wearing, but testified that he'couldn't tell what it was' and also that he'couldn't actually tell the size of it.'Jenks then reached into the pocket and pulled out the object, which turned out to be a 'crumpled up cigarette package.'Jenks testified that at this point he still did not know what was in the package:

'As I felt the package I could feel objects in the package but I couldn't tell what they were. . . .I knew they weren't cigarettes.'

The officer then opened the cigarette pack and found 14 gelatin capsules of white powder which he thought to be, and which later analysis proved to be, heroin.Jenks then continued his search of respondent to completion, feeling around his waist and trouser legs, and examining the remaining pockets.The heroin seized from the respondent was admitted into evidence at the trial which resulted in his conviction in the District Court.

The opinion for the plurality judges of the Court of Appeals, written by Judge Wright, the concurring opinion of Chief Judge Bazelon, and the dissenting opinion of Judge Wilkey, concurred in by three judges, gave careful and comprehensive treatment to the authority of a police officer to search the person of one who has been validly arrested and taken into custody.We conclude that the search conducted by Jenks in this case did not offend the limits imposed by the Fourth Amendment, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

It is well settled that a search incident to a lawful arrest is a traditional exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.This general exception has historically been formulated into two distinct propositions.The first is that a search may be made of the person of the arrestee by virtue of the lawful arrest.The second is that a search may be made of the area within the control of the arrestee.

Examination of this Court's decisions shows that these two propositions have been treated quite differently.The validity of the search of a person incident to a lawful arrest has been regarded as settled from its first enunciation, and has remained virtually unchallenged until the present case.The validity of the second proposition, while likewise conceded in principle, has been subject to differing interpretations as to the extent of the area which may be searched.

Because the rule requiring exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment was first enunciated in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652(1914), it is understandable that virtually all of this Court's search-and-seizure law has been developed since that time.In Weeks, the Court made clear its recognition of the validity of a search incident to a lawful arrest:

'What then is the present case?Before answering that inquiry specifically, it may be well by a process of exclusion to state what it is not.It is not an assertion of the right on the part of the Government, always recognized under English and American law, to search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime.This right has been uniformly maintained in many cases.1 Bishop on Criminal Procedure, § 211;Wharton, Crim.Plead. and Practice, 8th ed., § 60;Dillon v. O'Brien and Davis, 16 Cox C.C. 245.'Id., at 392, 34 S.Ct. at 344.

Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145(1925), decided 11 years after Weeks, repeats the categorical recognition of the validity of a search incident to lawful arrest:

'The right without a search warrant contemporaneously to search persons lawfully arrested while committing crime and to search the place where the arrest is made in order to find and size things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed, as well as weapons and other things to effect an escape from custody, is not to be doubted.'Id., at 30, 46 S.Ct. at 5.

Throughout the series of cases in which the Court has addressed the second proposition relating to a search incident to a lawful arrest—the permissible area beyond the person of the arrestee which such a search may cover—no doubt has been expressed as to the unqualified authority of the arresting authority to search the person of the arrestee.E.g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543(1925);Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231(1927);Go-Bart Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 51 S.Ct. 153, 75 L.Ed. 374(1931);United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 52 S.Ct. 420, 76 L.Ed. 877(1932);Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399(1947)...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3246 cases
  • People v. Gonzalez
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • Febrero 17, 1983
    ...probable cause be first present remains intact. --- U.S. at ----, ----, 102 S.Ct. at 2159, 2172, 72 L.Ed. at 578, 593. And though the Ross decision effectively overruled the law announced in United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (see 456 U.S. at ----, 102 S.Ct. at 2173, 72 L.Ed. at 595, White, J., dissenting), the Court carefully noted that their new rule "applies equally to all containers, ... a constitutional distinctionWhite, J., dissenting), the Court carefully noted that their new rule "applies equally to all containers, ... a constitutional distinction between 'worthy' and 'unworthy' containers would be improper...." 456 U.S. at ----, 102 S.Ct. at 2171, 72 L.Ed. at 592. Compare U.S. v. Robinson, supra ("crumpled up cigarette Thus, under either New York or federal precedent the search at issue here can not be sustained unless some expansion of the "inventory" exception is to be declared....
  • People v. Cregan
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • Mayo 27, 2014
    ...footlocker and long after [the defendants] were securely in custody,” it could not “be viewed as incidental to the arrest or as justified by any other exigency.” Id. ¶ 93 The Court then directly addressed the government's argument regarding Robinson and Edwards. Those cases were distinguishable, the Court stated, since they involved searches “of the person” rather than searches “of possessions within an arrestee's immediate control.” Id. at 16 n. 10, 97 S.Ct. 2476. Searchesdistance.” If so, then the majority has completely eliminated the distinction between searches of an arrestee's “person” and searches within the arrestee's “area of control” recognized by the Supreme Court in cases such as Robinson. That cannot be correct. ¶ 119 The majority does reference one example which might provide clarity regarding its possession rule, when it states that the defendants in Chadwick were not in possession of the footlocker when they were arrested. Supradefendant's motion to suppress the contents of the backpack and the circuit court affirmed. ¶ 111 Importantly, in upholding the warrantless search, the circuit court did not conclude that the backpack was part of the defendant's person under Robinson. To the contrary, the circuit court expressly held that “the search could not be justified under the search incident to arrest exception.” Matthews, 532 Fed.Appx. at 218. ¶ 112 The court upheld the search on the basis of a newly created...
  • Castillo v. Las Cruces Police Dep't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • Octubre 23, 2014
    ...grounds by Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). A search incident to arrest must be confined to the arrested individual's person and areas "from within which he or she might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence." Id.; Gant, 556 U.S. at 335. In the present matter, as discussed above, it appears that Defendant Austin lawfully arrested Plaintiff. As such, Defendant Austin was permitted to search Plaintiff's person and pockets incident to the arrest.been constitutionally proper as a search incident to arrest. "It is well settled that a search incident to a lawful arrest is a traditional exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224 (1973), abrogated on other grounds by Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). A search incident to arrest must be confined to the arrested individual's person and areas "from within which he or she might gain possession of a weapon...
  • People v. Buza
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • Abril 02, 2018
    ...a neutral magistrate make such a determination. For example, in the related context of searches incident to arrest—where a valid arrest is also essential—there is no such preapproval requirement. (See United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218, 219–224, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 [approving search of the person at time of valid arrest made without warrant]; People v. Brisendine (1975) 13 Cal.3d 528, 532–534, 119 Cal.Rptr. 315, 531 P.2d 1099 ( Brisendine ) [approving search for315, 531 P.2d 1099 [adhering to People v. Superior Court (Simon) (1972) 7 Cal.3d 186, 101 Cal.Rptr. 837, 496 P.2d 1205, notwithstanding the United States Supreme Court's later decision in United States v. Robinson , supra , 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467 ]; People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal.3d 67, 88, 148 Cal.Rptr. 605, 583 P.2d 130 [adhering to the rule of Theodor v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 77, 104 Cal.Rptr. 226, 501 P.2d 234, notwithstanding the UnitedBrisendine , supra , 13 Cal.3d at pp. 548–552, 119 Cal.Rptr. 315, 531 P.2d 1099 ; People v. Norman (1975) 14 Cal.3d 929, 938, 123 Cal.Rptr. 109, 538 P.2d 237 ). In the latter cases, we rejected the rule of United States v. Robinson , supra , 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, which, as we described it in Longwill , permits "full body searches of all individuals subjected to custodial arrest," as well as their effects, "regardless of the offense, and regardless of whether the...
  • Get Started for Free
86 books & journal articles
  • Search and Seizure: Persons
    • United States
    • Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2019 James Publishing Mark G. Daniel, Robert K. Gill
    • Agosto 16, 2019
    ...within his immediate control are excepted from the requirement of a warrant when incident to the lawful arrest of such person and otherwise proper in scope. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); Busby v. State, 990 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Carrasco v. State, 712 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Fourth Amendment jurisprudence prohibits unreasonable searches incident to arrest. McGee v. State,...
  • Arrest, Search & Seizure: a General Overview
    • United States
    • Colorado Lawyer Colorado Bar Association
    • Invalid date
    ...(1973). 126. Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 127. United States v. Crowder, 513 F.2d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1975). 128. ___ Colo. ___, 563 P.2d 926 (1977). 129. 401 U.S. 222 (1971). 130. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 131. 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 132. 414 U.S. 218 (1973). 133. 414 U.S. 260 (1973). 134. 414 U.S. 338 (1974). 135. Id. at 348. 136. Note 140 infra. 137. Vol. 12, No. 5, page 335. 138. Id. at 338. 139. 116 U.S....
  • Search and Seizure: Property
    • United States
    • Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2018 James Publishing Mark G. Daniel, Robert K. Gill
    • Agosto 17, 2018
  • Motions related to searches of persons
    • United States
    • Texas Criminal Forms - Volume 1-2 James Publishing Robert K. Gill, Mark Daniel
    • Abril 02, 2022
    ...if the facts of the case warrant specificity. The grounds are as follows: • The search of the defendant was done incident to a warrantless arrest made without sufficient probable cause. U.S. v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); Busby v. State , 990 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999). • The officer has insufficient probable cause for an arrest for an offense committed in his view under Tex. Code Crim . Pro . Art. 14.01.889 (1968); Davis v. State , 829 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Cr.App 1992). Before a law enforcement officer can search an individual pursuant to a full arrest, the officer must have probable cause for the arrest. U.S. v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); Busby v. State , 990 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999). If the defendant is illegally arrested, the fruits of the arrest must be suppressed unless intervening circumstances223 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Goodwin v. State , 799 S.W.2d 719 (Tex.Cr.App. 1990). • Was done incident to a warrantless arrest made without sufficient probable cause. U.S. v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); Busby v. State , 990 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999). • Was made during an invalid protective sweep of a premises. Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d...
  • Get Started for Free