New York vs Belton - case brief PDF

Preview

Summary

case brief...

Description

Andy Chrispen CJS 305.001 New York vs. Belton 453 U.S. 454 (1981) FACTS: On April 9, 1978, Douglas Nicot was driving an unmarked police car when he was passed by a car at an excessive speed. He chased down the car and eventually pulled the car over. There were four passengers in the car and after looking at all of the IDs, he determined that none of them owned the car or were related to the person that owned the car. During this, he smelled burnt marijuana and he saw an envelope on the ground that said “Supergold.” He associated this name with marijuana. He directed the men to get out of the car and he put them under arrest. He patted down each of the men and picked up the envelope and found marijuana in it. He read the four men their Miranda warning and searched the passenger compartment of the car. He found a jacket that belonged to Belton that had cocaine in it. He then drove away with the jacket and the four men to the police station. Belton was indicted for criminal possession of cocaine, but motioned to suppress. He was denied his motion and decided to plead guilty to a lesser charge. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the decision that the search and seizure was justified. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. QUESTION: Is it unreasonable to search the passenger compartment of the car after the offenders are out of the car? NO OPINION: Stewart, J. 1. Normally you need a search warrant to search something, but if the situation allows it, you may search without one 2. There needs to be a rule put in place that establishes when searches can occur a. This allows the accused to know what can happen and it also allows the officer to know what to do 3. Like in Chimel vs. California, everything in the arrestee’s reach should be searched 4. Because the jacket was inside the car and within reach, it was a lawful search. 5. Judgment is reversed DISSENT: Brennan, J. along with Marshall, J. 1. The Court is trying to expand where people can reach a. After they have been patted down there is no way they could have reached the jacket 2. Trying to set up a bright line rule in this case will disregard the Fourth Amendment 3. There are relevant factors that should determine if it is in the immediate control of the arrestee a. Number of police officers and arrestees b. The manner of restraint placed on the arrestee c. The ability of the arrestee to gain access to a particular area or container...