Delaware v. Prouse

The Court's mandate was to determine if discretionary spot checks by police officers on a public highway constituted unreasonable seizure. In reaching their decision, justices depended on guidance rendered in previous decisions regarding constitutionally legal, random spot checks conducted by U.S. Border Patrol officers. Essentially, in citing from precedence set in those cases, states were given clear guidance as to what circumstances merited random spot checks. Thus, while the state of Delaware's law enforcement agencies were held to have conducted unwarranted, arbitrary, and (therefore) constitutionally unreasonable seizure through random spot checks, the Court nonetheless gave states needed guidance by which law enforcement could legally engage in measures which promoted traffic safety.

In rendering their decision, the Supreme Court reiterated previous decisions that defined what constituted appropriate measure and protocol for random vehicular stops. In so doing, they ruled that the state of Delaware's support of random spot checks--made without pre-established protocol and at an officer's individual discretion--constituted unreasonable seizure which violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Unless there was a reasonable cause or suspicion that a vehicle and its occupants should be stopped and detained such as might be justified by a driver's violation of traffic regulations or any other law, police officers could not randomly stop and detain a driver. However, the Court's decision did not preclude the state of Delaware, or any other state, from crafting measures that would promote traffic safety so long as such measures did not intrude on a driver's privacy. The discretionary spot check on a public highway represented a constitutional violation because such stops were undertaken without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Moreover, in specifying that random stops were not an effective method of preventing traffic accidents but, rather, an invasion of privacy, the Supreme Court's ruling served to provide states with guidance which would guide law enforcement from committing an intrusive and unreasonable assault on the individual rights of drivers.

Even though there was no probable cause to stop his vehicle, William Pouse was pulled over by a patrol officer in New Castle County, Delaware. Walking toward the stopped vehicle, the patrolman smelled marijuana smoke. When the officer looked into the vehicle, marijuana was in plain view. Four occupants were in the car, and Prouse was not driving. Nonetheless, the vehicle was registered to Prouse so he was arrested and, subsequently, indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance.

When the case came to trial, Prouse submitted a motion to suppress the evidence (marijuana) seized as a result of the stop. At the hearing, the police officer testified that he stopped the car in order to check the driver's operating permit and the vehicle registration; it was what the officer referred to as a "routine stop." When asked to define what constituted such a stop, the patrolman replied, "I saw the car in the area and I wasn't answering any complaints, so I decided to pull them off." Further questioning revealed that the officer did not undertake any procedural protocol related to documentation of his spot check. Moreover, the spot check he subjected Prouse to was not part of a preplanned procedure scheduled by his superiors. Accordingly, the trial court granted Prouse's motion to suppress the evidence seized. The Court felt that unwarranted, nonscheduled, and irregular random stopping of Prouse's vehicle constituted an unreasonable seizure and, therefore, violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court further emphasized that random vehicle stops without reasonable suspicion or cause violated not only the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendments but also provisions of the Delaware Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision on appeal.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the state of Delaware, sought to justify random vehicle stops as essential to the state's interest in promoting traffic safety. The state felt its police officers should have a means at their disposal which, in accordance with each officer's judgment, gave visible evidence of the state's vigilance with respect to safe conduct on the roads and highways. The state supported random stops because they represented a "brief opportunity" in which detention of a vehicle "for a minute" constituted nothing more than a simple check of a driver's operating license and car registration rather than a major intrusion of privacy. Moreover, counsel for Delaware reasoned that the state's interest in increasing traffic safety on its roadways outweighed any intrusion of privacy imposed during any kind of spot check.

Prouse's attorney not only refuted the state's arguments, but (as a preliminary matter) questioned if the U.S. Supreme Court had appropriate jurisdiction. Prouse's attorney voiced misgivings as to whether the Delaware Supreme Court relied on the U.S. Constitution to render its decision or on provisions of the state constitution. If the Court's decision rested solely on the state constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction in the matter. Additionally, Prouse's attorney argued that because the officer's unwarranted, random spot check occurred at night, there existed an increased level of intrusion. In a less esoteric argument, Prouse's counsel responded directly to the state's presentation by reasoning that if a police officer was allowed to stop any car at any time without any reason, that constituted an abuse of a police officer's authority. Moreover, even if the state saw a compelling interest to promote public safety by allowing law enforcement to engage in spot checks of vehicles, there should be special guidelines provided which identified exactly what constituted appropriate conduct and protocol during random checks.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision was nearly unanimous (only one justice dissented). As a preliminary matter, the Court resolved the question of jurisdiction. The Delaware Supreme Court rendered its decision, in part, on the state constitution and the federal constitution (by specifically citing the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as bases for its ruling). Therefore, the justices held that the Supreme Court had appropriate jurisdiction. In directly addressing arguments presented before the Court, they reasoned that stopping a vehicle without any reasonable suspicion or cause, even if only to check a driver's license and registration, constituted a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment--it was unreasonable search and seizure. Citing precedence from United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1995), the Court explained that only under specific circumstances could random stops be justified such as when the U.S. Border Patrol conducted spot checks in the interest of preventing aliens from illegally entering the country. In that case, officers were further justified because there existed the additional possibility of interdicting illegal smuggling trade over the international border. The Court also found precedence in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976). Following a specific protocol, Border Patrol officers established a checkpoint through which all traffic slowed and was channeled through a highway roadblock where some vehicles were singled out and directed to an area designated for secondary inspection. The Court recognized that not only did there exist a governmental interest in such roadblock stops but that the protocol maintained was, itself, less intrusive than merely engaging in random stops of vehicles in moving traffic. Both decisions provided guidance for weighing a public interest against an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. Thus, the Court objected to the random stopping of Prouse by the Delaware police officer because, unlike roadblock stops of all vehicles, a random stop of a single vehicle carried the stigma of intrusiveness without reasonable cause. Further, it was the opinion of the Court that at the least Prouse's stopping constituted interference in his freedom of movement.

Although the Court recognized the state's interest in fostering traffic safety, "discretionary spot checks" appeared arbitrary and thus did not validate an intrusion on a driver's privacy. The Court agreed that, as counsel for the petitioner pointed out, reckless drivers represent endangerment to life and property. But the justices found it difficult to believe that, given a random choice of drivers on a street, a police officer could be able to randomly select which drivers might be operating a vehicle without a license or proper registration. In a large number of stopped vehicles, the Court reasoned there would probably only be a small number of drivers who did not have valid driving documents. Instead, the majority opinion went on to explain, it seemed preferable to rely on routine police procedures such as those undertaken when police officers stop vehicles for traffic violations; at that time officers could easily identify individuals operating a vehicle without a driving license or proper registration. Moreover, annual inspection of cars, car registration, and a driver's insurance coverage seemed better designed to keep dangerous automobiles and/or drivers off the roadways and better served to protect citizens who might otherwise become involved in traffic accidents with irresponsible drivers. Therefore, the Court held that, at best, random stops seemed marginally helpful in promoting traffic safety.

The Court concluded, too, that while an automobile and its use are subject to governmental regulation, a driver who is operating or traveling in that vehicle had the right to expect that his privacy not be violated. Justice White, in writing the decision for the majority, observed that "people are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles." This viewpoint was supported by findings in Terry v. Ohio (1968). Justice White further pointed out that privacy is the reason why many people choose to go by car rather than utilize public transportation or walk. However, the majority decision also observed that their decision in no way prevented a state from developing measures which would serve to increase traffic safety and, at the same time, not interfere with the privacy of drivers.