Petitioner
State of Illinois
Respondent
Ralph Lafayette
Petitioner's Claim
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the search of an arrestee's personal knapsack and closed containers contained therein as part of a routine inventory search conducted while as the arrestee is being booked into jail.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Michael A. Ficaro
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Peter A. Carusona
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for theCourt), Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
20 June 1983
Decision
When an arrestee is being jailed, the Fourth Amendment does not prevent police officers from searching, without a warrant, the knapsack or purse of the arrestee.
Significance
The decision was one of many made by the Burger Court that rolled back the Fourth Amendment protections given to persons by the Warren Court of the 1950sand 1960s. Most notably, the ruling reinforced the notion that law enforcement officers who are conducting a search need not resort to the least intrusivemeans in carrying out the search.
On 1 September 1980, Officer Maurice Mietzner of the Kankakee City Police Department in Kankakee, Illinois, responded to a call about a disturbance at theTown Cinema, a local movie theatre. At the theatre, Mietzner encountered Ralph Lafayette, who was embroiled in a dispute with the theatre manager. Mietzner arrested Lafayette for disturbing the peace and Mietzner took Lafayette away in handcuffs. En route to the station, Lafayette remained in possession ofhis shoulder bag.
In the booking room at the police station, Mietzner removed the handcuffs from Lafayette's wrists and ordered Lafayette to empty his pockets. Mietzner then searched through the contents of Lafayette's shoulder bag and found ten amphetamine pills. Lafayette was charged with possession of a controlled substance.
Before trial, Lafayette moved the court to exclude the amphetamine evidence,arguing that Mietzner had the opportunity to obtain a warrant for the searchof the shoulder bag. It is, in fact, a general rule of law under the Fourth Amendment that police should obtain a warrant from a magistrate before they conduct a search. Mietzner conceded at the pre-trial hearing that the bag couldhave been placed in a locker for safekeeping until he obtained a warrant from a magistrate, but he also testified that it was standard procedure to conduct an inventory of everything in the possession of an arrested person. Afterthe hearing, the state submitted a brief in which it argued, for the first time, that the search was conducted incident to Lafayette's arrest and that Mietzner merely delayed the search. The trial court decided to exclude the evidence.
The state of Illinois appealed the decision to the Illinois Appellate Court,which affirmed. The appeals court reviewed similar cases argued before the U.S. Supreme Court to come to their decision. In South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), the High Court held that an inventory search of an arrestee's locked vehicle, impounded for parking violations, was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment since the inventory search was conducted to prevent theft ofthe articles. Additionally, the search of the arrestee's unlocked glove compartment in Opperman was not unreasonable because vandals would have thesame access to the glove compartment as they would to the rest of car's interior. Using the reasoning employed by the High Court in Opperman, theIllinois appeals court ruled that the search of Lafayette's shoulder bag wasillegal under the Fourth Amendment. "[T]he postponed warrantless search of [Lafayette's] shoulder bag was neither incident to his lawful arrest," the Illinois court pronounced, "nor a valid inventory of belongings, and thus, violated the Fourth Amendment."
The Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal by the state of Illinois, so the state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously reversed. After recounting the case history and facts, Chief Justice Burger, writingfor the Court, framed the issue: whether it is "reasonable for police to search the effects of a person under lawful arrest as part of the routine administrative procedure at a police station house incident to booking and jailingthe suspect." Since the justification for such searches is not probable cause, Burger wrote, "the absence of a warrant is immaterial to the reasonablenessof the search." Rather than probable cause, an inventory search is justifiedby the need to protect both the arrestee and the officer. By conducting an inventory searching of an arrestee and the arrestee's belongings prior to jailing the arrestee, an officer ensures that the arrestee has no devices that may cause injury to someone. Also, such a search is necessary to prevent theftby police or false claims of theft by jailed arrestees. "[E]very consideration of orderly police administration benefiting both police and the public," Burger stated, "points toward the appropriateness of [Lafayette's] shoulder bagprior to his incarceration."
According to the Court, prior cases supported the decision to reverse. In Opperman, the Court did not consider whether there existed a less intrusive means of protecting police and an arrestee's property. Using the Illinoiscourt's own words, the Court declared that "the real question is not what `could have been achieved,' but whether the Fourth Amendment requires such steps. . . [I]t is not our function to write a manual on administering routine, neutral procedures of the station house," Burger lectured. "Our role is to assure against violations of the Constitution."
Justices Marshall and Brennan concurred in the judgment. In a short concurring opinion, Marshall wrote that "[a] very different case would be presented ifthe State had relied solely on the fact of arrest to justify the search of [Lafayette's] shoulder bag." According to Marshall and Brennan, Mietzner wouldnot have been able to search the bag at the theatre. The offense--disturbingthe peace--was not a charge that required evidence from the bag, nor was ita charge that could have been thwarted by a destruction of evidence. Furthermore, a search of the bag justified by a concern about the possible presence of weapons in the bag would have been illegal because seizure of the bag itself would have accomplished the goal of depriving Lafayette of any weapons in the bag. Thus, according to the concurring justices, the only reason Mietzner's search was legal was because he waited until he reached the police stationto conduct it.
Impact
The decision confirmed that a police officer may conduct a warrantless searchof the personal possessions of an arrestee who is about to be jailed. The most important principle that emerged from the case was the notion that the U.S. Supreme Court would not require police officers to use the least intrusivemeans possible in carrying out a warrantless search. Following the decision,the Lafayette case was, and still is, frequently cited for that proposition.
Related Cases
State of Illinois
Respondent
Ralph Lafayette
Petitioner's Claim
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the search of an arrestee's personal knapsack and closed containers contained therein as part of a routine inventory search conducted while as the arrestee is being booked into jail.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Michael A. Ficaro
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Peter A. Carusona
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for theCourt), Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
20 June 1983
Decision
When an arrestee is being jailed, the Fourth Amendment does not prevent police officers from searching, without a warrant, the knapsack or purse of the arrestee.
Significance
The decision was one of many made by the Burger Court that rolled back the Fourth Amendment protections given to persons by the Warren Court of the 1950sand 1960s. Most notably, the ruling reinforced the notion that law enforcement officers who are conducting a search need not resort to the least intrusivemeans in carrying out the search.
On 1 September 1980, Officer Maurice Mietzner of the Kankakee City Police Department in Kankakee, Illinois, responded to a call about a disturbance at theTown Cinema, a local movie theatre. At the theatre, Mietzner encountered Ralph Lafayette, who was embroiled in a dispute with the theatre manager. Mietzner arrested Lafayette for disturbing the peace and Mietzner took Lafayette away in handcuffs. En route to the station, Lafayette remained in possession ofhis shoulder bag.
In the booking room at the police station, Mietzner removed the handcuffs from Lafayette's wrists and ordered Lafayette to empty his pockets. Mietzner then searched through the contents of Lafayette's shoulder bag and found ten amphetamine pills. Lafayette was charged with possession of a controlled substance.
Before trial, Lafayette moved the court to exclude the amphetamine evidence,arguing that Mietzner had the opportunity to obtain a warrant for the searchof the shoulder bag. It is, in fact, a general rule of law under the Fourth Amendment that police should obtain a warrant from a magistrate before they conduct a search. Mietzner conceded at the pre-trial hearing that the bag couldhave been placed in a locker for safekeeping until he obtained a warrant from a magistrate, but he also testified that it was standard procedure to conduct an inventory of everything in the possession of an arrested person. Afterthe hearing, the state submitted a brief in which it argued, for the first time, that the search was conducted incident to Lafayette's arrest and that Mietzner merely delayed the search. The trial court decided to exclude the evidence.
The state of Illinois appealed the decision to the Illinois Appellate Court,which affirmed. The appeals court reviewed similar cases argued before the U.S. Supreme Court to come to their decision. In South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), the High Court held that an inventory search of an arrestee's locked vehicle, impounded for parking violations, was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment since the inventory search was conducted to prevent theft ofthe articles. Additionally, the search of the arrestee's unlocked glove compartment in Opperman was not unreasonable because vandals would have thesame access to the glove compartment as they would to the rest of car's interior. Using the reasoning employed by the High Court in Opperman, theIllinois appeals court ruled that the search of Lafayette's shoulder bag wasillegal under the Fourth Amendment. "[T]he postponed warrantless search of [Lafayette's] shoulder bag was neither incident to his lawful arrest," the Illinois court pronounced, "nor a valid inventory of belongings, and thus, violated the Fourth Amendment."
The Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal by the state of Illinois, so the state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously reversed. After recounting the case history and facts, Chief Justice Burger, writingfor the Court, framed the issue: whether it is "reasonable for police to search the effects of a person under lawful arrest as part of the routine administrative procedure at a police station house incident to booking and jailingthe suspect." Since the justification for such searches is not probable cause, Burger wrote, "the absence of a warrant is immaterial to the reasonablenessof the search." Rather than probable cause, an inventory search is justifiedby the need to protect both the arrestee and the officer. By conducting an inventory searching of an arrestee and the arrestee's belongings prior to jailing the arrestee, an officer ensures that the arrestee has no devices that may cause injury to someone. Also, such a search is necessary to prevent theftby police or false claims of theft by jailed arrestees. "[E]very consideration of orderly police administration benefiting both police and the public," Burger stated, "points toward the appropriateness of [Lafayette's] shoulder bagprior to his incarceration."
According to the Court, prior cases supported the decision to reverse. In Opperman, the Court did not consider whether there existed a less intrusive means of protecting police and an arrestee's property. Using the Illinoiscourt's own words, the Court declared that "the real question is not what `could have been achieved,' but whether the Fourth Amendment requires such steps. . . [I]t is not our function to write a manual on administering routine, neutral procedures of the station house," Burger lectured. "Our role is to assure against violations of the Constitution."
Justices Marshall and Brennan concurred in the judgment. In a short concurring opinion, Marshall wrote that "[a] very different case would be presented ifthe State had relied solely on the fact of arrest to justify the search of [Lafayette's] shoulder bag." According to Marshall and Brennan, Mietzner wouldnot have been able to search the bag at the theatre. The offense--disturbingthe peace--was not a charge that required evidence from the bag, nor was ita charge that could have been thwarted by a destruction of evidence. Furthermore, a search of the bag justified by a concern about the possible presence of weapons in the bag would have been illegal because seizure of the bag itself would have accomplished the goal of depriving Lafayette of any weapons in the bag. Thus, according to the concurring justices, the only reason Mietzner's search was legal was because he waited until he reached the police stationto conduct it.
Impact
The decision confirmed that a police officer may conduct a warrantless searchof the personal possessions of an arrestee who is about to be jailed. The most important principle that emerged from the case was the notion that the U.S. Supreme Court would not require police officers to use the least intrusivemeans possible in carrying out a warrantless search. Following the decision,the Lafayette case was, and still is, frequently cited for that proposition.
Related Cases
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976).
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977).
User Comments Add a comment…