Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

United States v. Di Re

Supreme Court of the United States · 1948 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureWarrantless arrestsSearch incident to arrestAutomobile searchesProbable causewarrantless arreststate law governs arrest validitysearch incident to arrest

Facts

An OPA investigator learned from informer Reed that Reed would buy counterfeit gasoline ration coupons from Buttitta at a specified place in Buffalo. Officers found Buttitta in the driver's seat of a parked car, Di Re sitting beside him, and Reed in the back seat holding two coupons that proved counterfeit; Reed said he got them from Buttitta. All three men were taken into custody and brought to the station, where Di Re was directed to empty his pockets, later was searched more thoroughly, and counterfeit coupons were found on his person. The officers had prior information implicating Buttitta, but no information specifically implicating Di Re beyond his presence in the car.

Issue

Whether officers lawfully searched Di Re's person without a warrant either as an incident to a lawful automobile search or as an incident to a lawful arrest. More specifically, the question was whether Di Re's mere presence in Buttitta's car gave officers lawful grounds under the applicable arrest law to arrest and search him.

Rule

A passenger's mere presence in a vehicle suspected of carrying contraband does not, without more, eliminate that person's immunity from search of his person. In the absence of an applicable federal statute, the legality of a warrantless arrest for a federal offense is determined by the law of the state where the arrest occurs, and a search incident to arrest is valid only if the arrest itself was lawful. Probable cause cannot be supplied by the fruits of the later search or by the suspect's submissive failure to protest.

🔒

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.

In Cleveland, Ohio, a city detective working with a federal price-control investigator arrests Lena Ortiz without a warrant for an alleged federal counterfeit-stamp offense. Congress has enacted no statute governing this kind of warrantless arrest by local officers, and the detective had only whatever authority Ohio law gives for arrests without warrants.

Which law governs whether Lena's warrantless arrest was valid?

Explanation. When no applicable federal statute governs a warrantless arrest for a federal offense, the validity of the arrest is determined by the law of the state where the arrest occurred. The majority rejected the argument for a general uniform federal rule in that setting. Because the arrest occurred in Ohio and no applicable federal statute controls, Ohio law supplies the standard; if the arrest is invalid under that law, any search incident to it is invalid as well.