Petitioner
State of Michigan
Respondent
David Long
Petitioner's Claim
That the Michigan Supreme Court had erred in overturning Long's conviction for possession of marijuana, after finding police had used an illegal search toobtain the evidence.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Louis J. Caruso
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
James H. Geary
Justices for the Court
Warren E. Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor (writing for the Court), Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
6 July 1983
Decision
Upheld the petitioner's claim and ordered the lower court to reconsider its decision.
Significance
The ruling had two results. First, it allowed police to search a detainee's car without first obtaining a warrant or placing the driver under arrest, if the officers had a reasonable fear of physical harm. Second, the Court defineda new standard for when it would review a lower court's decisions. If the lower court clearly stated it had based its decision on "adequate and independent state grounds," the Supreme Court would not take the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court had long held that its jurisdiction applies only to cases involving points of federal law. Over the years, however, some state supreme courts have based their decisions on a mixture of state and federal law,subsequently blurring the High Court's jurisdiction. When the state of Michigan asked the Supreme Court to review Michigan v. Long, the respondent,David Long, asserted the case did not belong in the Supreme Court. The Courtdisagreed, and in its decision it spelled out when it would hear such casesin the future.
Long's case involved his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searchand seizure, stemming from his conviction for possession of marijuana. Late one night, two police officers observed Long's car swerving along a Michigan country road. Long then careened off the road into a ditch, and the police investigated the scene. Long got out of his car, and the officers determined hewas intoxicated. Looking inside the car, the officers saw a hunting knife. They then searched Long for weapons and looked inside the car again. One officer saw a leather pouch containing marijuana. Long was arrested, and the policethen found more marijuana in the trunk.
At his trial, Long tried to suppress the marijuana as evidence, claiming theofficers had made an unreasonable search of his car. Both the circuit and appeals court denied Long's claim, extending the Supreme Court's ruling in Terry v. Ohio (1968). In that case, the Court held that police can search adetainee's body for weapons before an arrest, if the officers have a reasonable fear for their safety. Now, the so-called "Terry search" was applied to adetainee's car as well.
The Michigan Supreme Court, however, agreed with Long and overturned his conviction. It cited both the Fourth Amendment and the Michigan State Constitution in defending Long's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.The state of Michigan then asked the Supreme Court to consider the case and it agreed, wanting to rule on the use of the Terry search on a detainee's car.
Deciding the Court's Jurisdiction
Long argued that the Supreme Court had no reason to hear the case. The Michigan Supreme Court had followed an accepted precedent, basing its decision on "adequate and independent state grounds," i.e., the protection provided by thestate's constitution. Before addressing the constitutional issues of the case, the Supreme Court looked at Long's claim.
Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice O'Connor asserted that the state courthad not relied on state grounds. The lower court, she wrote, had relied almost exclusively on federal cases, especially Terry, in its decision: "The references to the State Constitution in no way indicate that the decision below rested on grounds in any way independent from the state court's interpretation of federal law."
O'Connor had previously set forth the new, general standard the Court would apply when deciding to hear similar cases:
Reaction to the "Plain Statement" Rule
In his dissent, joined by Justice Marshall, Justice Brennan criticized the Court's extension of the Terry search. Quoting Justice Robert H. Jackson, Brennan wrote that Fourth Amendment rights "are not mere second-class rights but belong in the category of indispensable freedoms." Brennan thought the Court had gone too far in its new definition of reasonable search and seizure.
To other justices, however, and some legal observers, the most controversialpart of the Michigan decision was the Court's new standard for hearingstate cases, the so-called "plain statement" rule. Although he concurred with the bulk of the majority decision, Justice Blackmun dissented from the section that defined this new approach to the Court's jurisdiction. In a separatedissent, Justice Stevens offered a lengthy attack on the new rule.
In the past, Stevens noted, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear cases in which a state court denied a citizen a right guaranteed by federal law or the U.S. Constitution. In Michigan, on the contrary, the state of Michigan was asking the Court to hear a case in which the state court defined a citizen's rights "too broadly" by overturning Long's conviction, based on the stateConstitution. Stevens was uncomfortable with this new precedent. He went on:
Related Cases
State of Michigan
Respondent
David Long
Petitioner's Claim
That the Michigan Supreme Court had erred in overturning Long's conviction for possession of marijuana, after finding police had used an illegal search toobtain the evidence.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Louis J. Caruso
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
James H. Geary
Justices for the Court
Warren E. Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor (writing for the Court), Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
6 July 1983
Decision
Upheld the petitioner's claim and ordered the lower court to reconsider its decision.
Significance
The ruling had two results. First, it allowed police to search a detainee's car without first obtaining a warrant or placing the driver under arrest, if the officers had a reasonable fear of physical harm. Second, the Court defineda new standard for when it would review a lower court's decisions. If the lower court clearly stated it had based its decision on "adequate and independent state grounds," the Supreme Court would not take the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court had long held that its jurisdiction applies only to cases involving points of federal law. Over the years, however, some state supreme courts have based their decisions on a mixture of state and federal law,subsequently blurring the High Court's jurisdiction. When the state of Michigan asked the Supreme Court to review Michigan v. Long, the respondent,David Long, asserted the case did not belong in the Supreme Court. The Courtdisagreed, and in its decision it spelled out when it would hear such casesin the future.
Long's case involved his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searchand seizure, stemming from his conviction for possession of marijuana. Late one night, two police officers observed Long's car swerving along a Michigan country road. Long then careened off the road into a ditch, and the police investigated the scene. Long got out of his car, and the officers determined hewas intoxicated. Looking inside the car, the officers saw a hunting knife. They then searched Long for weapons and looked inside the car again. One officer saw a leather pouch containing marijuana. Long was arrested, and the policethen found more marijuana in the trunk.
At his trial, Long tried to suppress the marijuana as evidence, claiming theofficers had made an unreasonable search of his car. Both the circuit and appeals court denied Long's claim, extending the Supreme Court's ruling in Terry v. Ohio (1968). In that case, the Court held that police can search adetainee's body for weapons before an arrest, if the officers have a reasonable fear for their safety. Now, the so-called "Terry search" was applied to adetainee's car as well.
The Michigan Supreme Court, however, agreed with Long and overturned his conviction. It cited both the Fourth Amendment and the Michigan State Constitution in defending Long's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.The state of Michigan then asked the Supreme Court to consider the case and it agreed, wanting to rule on the use of the Terry search on a detainee's car.
Deciding the Court's Jurisdiction
Long argued that the Supreme Court had no reason to hear the case. The Michigan Supreme Court had followed an accepted precedent, basing its decision on "adequate and independent state grounds," i.e., the protection provided by thestate's constitution. Before addressing the constitutional issues of the case, the Supreme Court looked at Long's claim.
Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice O'Connor asserted that the state courthad not relied on state grounds. The lower court, she wrote, had relied almost exclusively on federal cases, especially Terry, in its decision: "The references to the State Constitution in no way indicate that the decision below rested on grounds in any way independent from the state court's interpretation of federal law."
O'Connor had previously set forth the new, general standard the Court would apply when deciding to hear similar cases:
If a state court choosesmerely to rely on federal precedents as it would on the precedents of all other jurisdictions, then it need only make clear by a plain statement in its judgment or opinion that the federal cases are being used only for the purposeof guidance, and do not themselves compel the result that the court has reached . . . If the state court decision indicates clearly and expressly that itis . . . based on bona fide separate, adequate, and independent grounds, we,of course, will not undertake to review the decision.The Courtthen proceeded to address the validity of a Terry search on a car and upheldit as constitutional. Officers could search the areas of a car where a weapon could be hidden, if they believed the suspect was dangerous and might gaincontrol of a hidden weapon.
Reaction to the "Plain Statement" Rule
In his dissent, joined by Justice Marshall, Justice Brennan criticized the Court's extension of the Terry search. Quoting Justice Robert H. Jackson, Brennan wrote that Fourth Amendment rights "are not mere second-class rights but belong in the category of indispensable freedoms." Brennan thought the Court had gone too far in its new definition of reasonable search and seizure.
To other justices, however, and some legal observers, the most controversialpart of the Michigan decision was the Court's new standard for hearingstate cases, the so-called "plain statement" rule. Although he concurred with the bulk of the majority decision, Justice Blackmun dissented from the section that defined this new approach to the Court's jurisdiction. In a separatedissent, Justice Stevens offered a lengthy attack on the new rule.
In the past, Stevens noted, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear cases in which a state court denied a citizen a right guaranteed by federal law or the U.S. Constitution. In Michigan, on the contrary, the state of Michigan was asking the Court to hear a case in which the state court defined a citizen's rights "too broadly" by overturning Long's conviction, based on the stateConstitution. Stevens was uncomfortable with this new precedent. He went on:
. . . the final outcome of the state processes offended no federal interest whatsoever. Michigan simply provided greater protection to one ofits citizens than some other State might provide, or, indeed, than this Courtmight require throughout the country. I believe that in reviewing the decisions of state courts, the primary role of this Court is to make sure that persons who seek to vindicate federal rights have been fairly heard . . .Finally, I am thoroughly baffled by the Court's suggestion that it must stretch its jurisdiction and reverse the judgment of the Michigan Supreme Court inorder to show "[r]espect for the independence of the state courts."Despite Stevens' concerns, the Court had now shown it would hear cases where a state court had granted broader rights than those guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, as long as the plain statement rule had been met.
Related Cases
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
User Comments Add a comment…