Ornelas v. United States

Rehnquist defended the majority's decision against Justice Scalia's dissent. Scalia argued that the Court's holding accomplished nothing because the factual differences between cases will still make the opinions virtually worthless as precedent. The majority maintained, though, that some cases could be considered factually similar to other cases. Finally, the Court listed a number of factors that it thought the appeals court should consider on remand. The majority emphasized that the weather in Milwaukee should be a factor in determining whether the Milwaukee detectives had reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendants were engaged in criminal activity, and whether the deputy's claim of probable cause to open the panel in the Oldsmobile was credible. "What may not amount to reasonable suspicion at a motel located alongside a transcontinental highway at the height of the summer tourist season," Rehnquist instructed, "may rise to that level in December in Milwaukee. That city is unlikely to have been an overnight stop selected at the last minute by a traveler coming from California to points east."

Justice Scalia dissented mainly because he thought that the decision would not provide any benefits. In Scalia's opinion, the de novo review of facts surrounding a police officer's reasonable suspicion and probable cause determination was unnecessary, and it would not provide meaningful precedent for future cases. Scalia reminded the majority that the trial court is in a much better position to evaluate the facts of a case than is an appeals court because the trial court has the advantage of presiding over the trial. Appeals courts, by contrast, do not see or hear the witnesses and must confine their review to the trial court record. Scalia mocked the circular nature of the decision: the majority held that the appeals court should not give deference to the trial court's interpretation of the facts, but at the same time the majority strongly suggested that the work of the Milwaukee detectives was reasonable. "This finding of `reasonableness' is precisely what it has told us the appellate court must review de novo; and in de novo review, the `weight due' to a trial court's finding is zero. In the last analysis, therefore, the Court's opinion seems to me not only wrong but contradictory."