Supreme Court of the United States · 1978 · Criminal Procedure
439 U.S. 128 (1978)
Updated
Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentSearch and Seizuresuppressionstandinglegitimate expectation of privacypersonal rightsautomobile search
Facts
Police stopped a car they suspected might be connected to a robbery and ordered out the occupants, including petitioners, who were passengers. Officers then searched the car and found rifle shells in a locked glove compartment and a sawed-off rifle under the front passenger seat. Petitioners did not own or lease the car, and the owner was driving it at the time of the stop. Petitioners also did not claim ownership of the rifle or shells.
Issue
May passengers in a car, who neither own nor lease the car and who claim no property interest in the seized items, challenge the search of the glove compartment and area under the seat on the ground that they were legitimately present in the car? More broadly, does Fourth Amendment analysis turn on a separate concept of standing or on whether the defendant's own Fourth Amendment rights were violated?
Rule
Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights that may not be asserted vicariously. A defendant may invoke the exclusionary rule only if the challenged search or seizure infringed the defendant's own legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or item seized; mere legitimate presence on the premises is relevant but not determinative.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Phoenix, Lena Ortiz accepted a ride from her coworker, Devin Cole, to a concert. Police stopped Devin's sedan, ordered everyone out, and searched the locked glove compartment, where they found counterfeit bills later used against Lena. Lena neither owned nor leased the car and did not claim any interest in the glove compartment or the bills.
May Lena successfully suppress the bills?
Explanation. The governing inquiry is whether the challenged search violated the defendant's own Fourth Amendment rights. Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be asserted vicariously. A mere passenger who does not own or possess the car, and who makes no showing of a legitimate expectation of privacy in the particular area searched, cannot suppress evidence found there. The majority specifically rejected the idea that legitimate presence alone is controlling, and it did not hold that passengers never have any Fourth Amendment rights in cars.