But a search of a car and the containers within it based on nothing more than reasonable suspicion, even under the circumstances present. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 23, 1983 in Michigan v. Long Warren E. Burger: We'll hear arguments next in Michigan against Long.

See also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U. S. 553, 459 U. S. 556-557, n. 3 (1983). which historically [had] not been, and as a practical matter could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure,", id. On matters of state law, the decisions of a state supreme court are considered final and binding on state and even United States federal courts.

In these cases, the state courts relied on both state and federal law. Precedent from Murdock v. City of Memphis , 87 U.S. 590 (1874) and other cases established that the U.S. Supreme Court could not review state cases if there was adequate and independent state ground.

Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. The Supreme Court of the State of Michigan expressly held, "that the deputies' search of the vehicle was proscribed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution.". Oral Argument - February 23, 1983; Opinions.

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. The court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions. However, the court cited that case only in the context of a statement that the State did not seek to justify the search in this case "by reference to other exceptions to the warrant requirement." Ibid. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. Cancel anytime.
.

The marihuana found in Long's trunk was considered by the court below to be the "fruit" of the illegal search of the interior, and was also suppressed.

1, § 11 of the state constitution unless shown to be within one of the exceptions to the rule.'".

at 392 U. S. 22, and the, "need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest.

Id. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. Because the Court was dealing, "with an entire rubric of police conduct . In order to "achieve the consistency that is necessary," the Court today undertakes a reexamination of all the possibilities.

.

If the state court decision indicates clearly and expressly that it is alternatively based on bona fide separate, adequate, and independent state grounds, this Court will not undertake to review the decision. 390 U.S. 1012 (1968). When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop. Ante at 463 U. S. 1050.

In this case, the officers did not act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within Long's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. Read our student testimonials. is also justified on other grounds, . . See Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 6 (1982).

. Id. Advocates. See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. at 462 U. S. 717-719 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in result). The state court stated that, "th[e] provisions of the Federal and State Constitutions impose identical restrictions upon the legislative power of the state in respect to classification for purposes of taxation,".

Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea! and can therefore involve a relatively extensive exploration of the person. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest.

The Court denies that an "area search" is fundamentally inconsistent with Terry, see ante at 463 U. S. 1052, n. 16, stating: "We have recognized that Terry searches are limited insofar as they may not be conducted in the absence of an articulable suspicion that the intrusion is justified, see e.g., Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 392 U. S. 65 (1968), and that they are protective in nature and limited to weapons, see Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85, 444 U. S. 93-94 (1979).

When the state attempted to appeal this decision, Long argued that the U.S. Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction because the state Supreme Court had based its ruling on an adequate and independent state ground. Oral Argument - February 23, 1983; Opinions. Thus, the Supreme Court should have recognized that independent and adequate state grounds existed for the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision.

Each year it agrees to hear about one hundred to one hundred fifty of the more than seven thousand cases that it is asked to review.

Instead, the Court seems to conclude that, because some precedents are to be rejected, we must overrule them all.

Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117, 324 U. S. 126 (1945).

In this case, apart from two citations to the State Constitution, the court below relied exclusively on its understanding of Terry and other federal cases. P. 463 U. S. 1053. We then vacated the judgment of the state court, and remanded. . National Tea Co., supra, at 309 U. S. 557. In each case, the court ruled against suppressing the evidence. [Footnote 16], The trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the search of the trunk as a valid inventory search under this Court's decision in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364 (1976).

Again, our decision rested in part on our view of the danger presented to police officers in "traffic stop" and automobile situations. See 453 U.S. at 453 U. S. 460; supra at 463 U. S. 1057-1058. They are fortified by my belief that a policy of judicial restraint -- one that allows other decisional bodies to have the last word in legal interpretation until it is truly necessary for this Court to intervene -- enables this Court to make its most effective contribution to our federal system of government. Inside the car, police found an exposed bag of marijuana. Long argues that, under the current Michigan Comp.Laws § 333.7107 (1979), the definition of a "narcotic" does not include marihuana. Presumably, the more conservative Burger court sought to reverse the liberal Michigan decision.

O'Connor suggests that state courts write "clearly and expressly" that their decision rests on bona fide state grounds. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Deputies Howell and Lewis were on patrol in a rural area one evening when, shortly after midnight, they observed a car traveling erratically and at excessive speed. The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government. address. Here's why 402,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? In addition, the Court's requirement that an officer have a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed and dangerous does little to check the initiation of an area search.

BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 463 U. S. 1054.

at 453 U. S. 460, n. 3, the Court held that, "when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription.
Get United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year).

[Footnote 6] It also avoids the unsatisfactory and intrusive practice of requiring state courts to clarify their decisions to the satisfaction of this Court.

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 in order to show "[r]espect for the independence of state courts." The Michigan Supreme Court reversed Long's conviction for possession of marijuana on the basis that the search of his vehicle was impermissible under the federal and state constitutions. It is no guide at all either for a jury or for district judges or the police to say that an 'unreasonable search' is forbidden -- that the search must be reasonable.

Thirty years ago, this Court reviewed only one.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Long's conviction, holding that the search of the passenger, compartment was valid as a protective search under Terry, supra, and that the search of the trunk was valid as an inventory search under South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364 (1976).

See United State v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 462 U. S. 714-717 (1983) (BRENNAN, J., concurring in result).

[Footnote 8].

Because the officer feared that the suspects were armed, he patted down the outside of the suspects' clothing and discovered two revolvers.

Ante at 463 U. S. 1040. ", Ante at 463 U. S. 1040 (emphasis omitted).

Solicitor General, you may proceed whenever you are ready.

. I join Parts I, III, IV, and V of the Court's opinion. In Belton, the Court considered the scope of a search incident to the lawful custodial arrest of an occupant of an automobile. 1040–1041).

In Commonwealth v. Dell Publications, Inc., 427 Pa. 189, 233 A.2d 840 (1967), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected the defendant's right to publish and distribute the book "Candy." Even assuming that the facts in this case justified the officers' initial "frisk" of respondent, see ante at 463 U. S. 1035-1036, 463 U. S. 1050-1051, and n. 15, they hardly provide adequate justification for a search of a suspect's car and the containers within it.

. (quoting Chimel, supra, at 395 U. S. 763). The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. The petitioner also confirmed that the officers could have arrested Long for driving while intoxicated, but they "would have to go through a process to make a determination as to whether the party is intoxicated, and then go from that point." Michigan v. Long. Jones v. City of Ypsilanti, 26 Mich.App. Our requirement of a "plain statement" that a decision rests upon adequate and independent state grounds does not in any way authorize the rendering of advisory opinions. The court below treated this case as involving a protective search, and not a search justified by probable cause to arrest for speeding, driving while intoxicated, or any other offense. The Supreme Court, however, found that the lower court's opinion did not indicate that its decision rested on grounds in any way independent from its interpretation of federal law.

The Supreme Court should be reluctant to hear appeals of cases in which states are seeking to reverse judgments in their own courts in favor of their citizens.