KNOWLES
v.
IOWA
certiorari to the supreme court of Iowa
No. 97-7597.
Argued November 3, 1998
Decided December 8, 1998
An
Iowa policeman stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding and issued him a
citation rather than arresting him. The officer then conducted a full search of
the car, without either Knowles' consent or probable cause, found marijuana and
a "pot pipe," and arrested Knowles. Before his trial on state drug
charges, Knowles moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that because he had
not been arrested, the search could not be sustained under the "search
incident to arrest" exception recognized in United States v. Robinson, 414
U. S. 218. The trial court denied the motion and found Knowles guilty, based on
state law giving officers authority to conduct a full-blown search of an
automobile and driver where they issue a citation instead of making a custodial
arrest. In affirming, the State Supreme Court applied its bright-line
"search incident to citation" exception to the Fourth Amendment's
warrant requirement, reasoning that so long as the officer had probable cause
to make a custodial arrest, there need not in fact have been an arrest.
Held: The search at
issue, authorized as it was by state law, nonetheless violates the Fourth
Amendment. Neither of the two historical exceptions for the "search
incident to arrest" exception, see Robinson, supra, at 234, is sufficient
to justify the search in the present case. First, the threat to officer safety
from issuing a traffic citation is a good deal less than in the case of a
custodial arrest. While concern for safety during a routine traffic stop may
justify the "minimal" additional intrusion of ordering a driver and
passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably
greater intrusion attending a full field-type search. Even without the search
authority Iowa urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for
weapons and protect themselves from danger. Second, the need to discover and
preserve evidence does not exist in a traffic stop, for once Knowles was
stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute
that offense had been obtained. Iowa's
argument that a "search incident to citation" is justified because a
suspect may try to hide evidence of his identity or of other crimes is unpersuasive.
An officer may arrest a driver if he is not satisfied with the identification
furnished, and the possibility that an officer would stumble onto evidence of
an unrelated offense seems remote. Pp. 3-6. 569 N. W. 2d 601, reversed and remanded.
Rehnquist,
C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
PATRICK KNOWLES, PETITIONER v. IOWA
on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of Iowa
[December 8, 1998]
Chief
Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
An
Iowa police officer stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding, but issued him a
citation rather than arresting him. The question presented is whether such a
procedure authorizes the officer, consistently with the Fourth Amendment, to
conduct a full search of the car. We answer this question "no."
Knowles
was stopped in Newton, Iowa, after having been clocked driving 43 miles per
hour on a road where the speed limit was 25 miles per hour. The police officer
issued a citation to Knowles, although under Iowa law he might have arrested
him. The officer then conducted a full search of the car, and under the
driver's seat he found a bag of marijuana and a "pot pipe." Knowles
was then arrested and charged with violation of state laws dealing with
controlled substances.
Before
trial, Knowles moved to suppress the evidence so obtained. He argued that the
search could not be sustained under the "search incident to arrest"
exception recognized in United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973),
because he had not been placed under arrest. At the hearing on the motion to
suppress, the police officer conceded that he had neither Knowles' consent nor
probable cause to conduct the search. He relied on Iowa law dealing with such
searches.
Iowa
Code Ann. §321.485(1)(a) (West 1997) provides that Iowa peace officers having
cause to believe that a person has violated any traffic or motor vehicle
equipment law may arrest the person and immediately take the person before a
magistrate. Iowa law also authorizes the far more usual practice of issuing a
citation in lieu of arrest or in lieu of continued custody after an initial
arrest.1 See Iowa Code Ann. §805.1(1) (West Supp. 1997). Section
805.1(4) provides that the issuance of a citation in lieu of an arrest
"does not affect the officer's authority to conduct an otherwise lawful
search." The Iowa Supreme Court has interpreted this provision as
providing authority to officers to conduct a full-blown search of an automobile
and driver in those cases where police elect not to make a custodial arrest and
instead issue a citation--that is, a search incident to citation. See State v.
Meyer, 543 N. W. 2d 876, 879 (1996); State v. Becker, 458 N. W. 2d 604, 607
(1990).
Based
on this authority, the trial court denied the motion to suppress and found
Knowles guilty. The Supreme Court of Iowa, sitting en banc, affirmed by a
divided vote. 569 N. W. 2d 601 (1997). Relying on its earlier opinion in State
v. Doran, 563 N. W. 2d 620 (1997), the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the search under a bright-line "search incident to
citation" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement,
reasoning that so long as the arresting officer had probable cause to make a
custodial arrest, there need not in fact have been a custodial arrest. We
granted certiorari, 523 U. S. ___ (1998), and we now reverse.
The
State contends that Knowles has challenged Iowa Code's §805.1(4) only "on
its face" and not "as applied," in which case, the argument
continues, his challenge would run afoul of Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40
(1968). But in his motion to suppress, Knowles argued that "[b]ecause the
officer had no probable cause and no search warrant, and the search cannot
otherwise be justified under the Fourth Amendment, the search of the car was
unconstitutional." App. 7. Knowles did not argue below, and does not argue
here, that the statute could never be lawfully applied. The question we
therefore address is whether the search at issue, authorized as it was by state
law, nonetheless violates the Fourth Amendment.2
In
Robinson, supra, we noted the two historical rationales for the "search
incident to arrest" exception: (1) the need to disarm the suspect in order
to take him into custody, and (2) the need to preserve evidence for later use
at trial. 414 U. S., at 234. See also United States v. Edwards, 415 U. S. 800,
802-803 (1974); Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 762-763 (1969); Preston v.
United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964); Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S.
20, 30 (1925); Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914). But neither
of these underlying rationales for the search incident to arrest exception is
sufficient to justify the search in the present case.
We
have recognized that the first rationale--officer safety--is " `both
legitimate and weighty,' " Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 412 (1997)
(quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 110 (1977) (per curiam)). The
threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation, however, is a good
deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest. In Robinson, we stated that a
custodial arrest involves "danger to an officer" because of "the
extended exposure which follows the taking of a suspect into custody and
transporting him to the police station." 414 U. S., at 234-235. We
recognized that "[t]he danger to the police officer flows from the fact of
the arrest, and its attendant proximity, stress, and uncertainty, and not from
the grounds for arrest." Id., at 234, n. 5. A routine traffic stop, on the
other hand, is a relatively brief encounter and "is more analogous to a
so-called `Terry stop' ... than to a formal arrest." Berkemer v. McCarty,
468 U. S. 420, 437 (1984). See also Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 296 (1973)
("Where there is no formal arrest . . . a person might well be less
hostile to the police and less likely to take conspicuous, immediate steps to
destroy incriminating evidence").
This
is not to say that the concern for officer safety is absent in the case of a
routine traffic stop. It plainly is not. See Mimms, supra, at 110; Wilson,
supra, at 413- 414. But while the concern for officer safety in this context
may justify the "minimal" additional intrusion of ordering a driver
and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often
considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type search. Even without the search authority Iowa
urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect
themselves from danger. For example, they may order out of a vehicle both the
driver, Mimms, supra, at 111, and any passengers, Wilson, supra, at 414;
perform a "patdown" of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable
suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968);
conduct a "Terry patdown" of the passenger compartment of a vehicle
upon reasonable suspicion that an occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate
control of a weapon, Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049 (1983); and even
conduct a full search of the passenger compartment, including any containers
therein, pursuant to a custodial arrest, New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, 460
(1981).
Nor
has Iowa shown the second justification for the authority to search incident to
arrest--the need to discover and preserve evidence. Once Knowles was stopped
for speeding and issued a citation, all the evidence necessary to prosecute
that offense had been obtained. No further evidence of excessive speed was
going to be found either on the person of the offender or in the passenger
compartment of the car.
Iowa
nevertheless argues that a "search incident to citation" is justified
because a suspect who is subject to a routine traffic stop may attempt to hide
or destroy evidence related to his identity (e. g., a driver's license or
vehicle registration), or destroy evidence of another, as yet undetected crime.
As for the destruction of evidence relating to identity, if a police officer is
not satisfied with the identification furnished by the driver, this may be a
basis for arresting him rather than merely issuing a citation. As for destroying evidence of other crimes,
the possibility that an officer would stumble onto evidence wholly unrelated to
the speeding offense seems remote.
In
Robinson, we held that the authority to conduct a full field search as incident
to an arrest was a "bright-line rule," which was based on the concern
for officer safety and destruction or loss of evidence, but which did not
depend in every case upon the existence of either concern. Here we are asked to
extend that "bright-line rule" to a situation where the concern for
officer safety is not present to the same extent and the concern for
destruction or loss of evidence is not present at all. We decline to do so. The
judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa is reversed, and the cause remanded for
further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
FOOTNOTES
Footnote
1
Iowa
law permits the issuance of a citation in lieu of arrest for most offenses for
which an accused person would be "eligible for bail." See Iowa Code
Ann. §805.1(1) (West Supp. 1997). In addition to traffic and motor vehicle
equipment violations, this would permit the issuance of a citation in lieu of
arrest for such serious felonies as second-degree burglary, §713.5 (West Supp.
1997), and first-degree theft, Iowa Code Ann. §714.2(1) (West 1993), both
bailable offenses under Iowa law. See §811.1 (West Supp. 1997) (listing all
nonbailable offenses). The practice in Iowa of permitting citation in lieu of
arrest is consistent with law reform efforts. See 3 W. Lafave, Search and
Seizure §5.2(h), p. 99, and n. 151 (3d ed. 1996).
Footnote
2
Iowa
also contends that Knowles' challenge is precluded because he failed to seek
review of a separate decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, which affirmed his
conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of a city
ordinance. That decision, Iowa argues, resulted from the same search at issue
here, rejected the same Fourth Amendment challenge Knowles now makes, and,
under principles of res judicata, bars his present challenge. Even if Knowles'
failure to seek certiorari review of this decision could preclude his present
challenge, Iowa waived this argument by failing to raise it in its brief in
opposition to the petition for certiorari. See this Court's Rule 15.2; Oklahoma
City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 808, 816 (1985) ("Nonjurisdictional defects of
this sort should be brought to our attention no later than in respondent's
brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari; if not, we consider it
within our discretion to deem the defect waived").