Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Florida v. Royer

Supreme Court of the United States · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentInvestigative DetentionConsent SearchesFourth AmendmentTerry stopinvestigative detentionairport stop

Facts

At Miami International Airport, plainclothes detectives approached Royer after observing conduct and circumstances they believed fit a drug courier profile. Royer produced a ticket in the name "Holt" and a driver's license in the name "Royer"; after he explained the discrepancy, the officers told him they were narcotics investigators, kept his ticket and identification, and asked him to accompany them to a small room about 40 feet away. Without Royer's consent, one detective retrieved Royer's checked luggage and brought it to the room, where the officers asked to search it and Royer unlocked one suitcase and allowed the second to be opened. Marijuana was found, and Royer was then arrested; about 15 minutes had elapsed from the initial approach to the arrest.

Issue

Whether Royer was being illegally detained at the time he consented to the search of his luggage, so that his consent was tainted and ineffective under the Fourth Amendment. Also, whether the officers had either stayed within the limits of a permissible Terry-type stop or had probable cause to arrest before the search.

Rule

Police may approach a person in public, ask questions, and request identification without effecting a seizure so long as the person remains free to decline and leave. A person may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds, and an investigative detention on reasonable suspicion must be temporary, no longer than necessary to effectuate its purpose, and carried out by the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel suspicion in a short period of time. If officers exceed those limits and create a detention tantamount to arrest without probable cause, consent obtained during that illegal detention is tainted and cannot justify a search.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At Union Station in Denver, two plainclothes narcotics officers approach Nina Patel in the public concourse, identify themselves, and ask whether she will answer a few questions. She agrees, briefly shows her driver's license and train ticket, and the officers immediately return both documents while telling her she does not have to stay; they then ask for permission to look inside her tote bag, and she says yes.

Is the bag search most likely valid under the Fourth Amendment rule governing investigative detentions and consent?

Explanation. Police may approach a person in a public place, ask questions, and request identification without effecting a seizure so long as the person remains free to decline and leave. Here, the officers returned Nina's documents immediately, kept the encounter in a public area, and expressly told her she did not have to stay. Under the majority's rule, if there is no unlawful detention, voluntary consent is effective to justify the search. (Derived from Florida v. Royer (n.d.).)