Supreme Court of the United States · 2008 · Criminal Procedure
553 U.S. 164 (2008)
Updated
Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentWarrantless ArrestsSearch Incident to Arrestreasonablenessprobable causewarrantless arreststate law
Facts
Portsmouth police officers stopped David Lee Moore after hearing that a person known as "Chubs" was driving with a suspended license, and one officer knew Moore by that nickname. The officers confirmed that Moore's license was suspended and arrested him for that misdemeanor, although Virginia law generally required officers to issue a summons instead of making an arrest for that offense under the circumstances present here. After taking Moore into custody, the officers searched him and found 16 grams of crack cocaine and $516 in cash. Moore moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that because the arrest violated state law, the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
Issue
Does the Fourth Amendment forbid a custodial arrest, and a search incident to that arrest, when officers have probable cause to believe a person committed a crime in their presence but state law required issuance of a summons rather than arrest?
Rule
When officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless custodial arrest. State restrictions on arrest do not alter the Fourth Amendment's protections, and a search incident to such a constitutionally permissible arrest is valid without additional justification.
🔒
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 Columbus, Ohio, Officer Nina Perez personally sees Omar Bennett drive through a clearly posted bus-only lane, a misdemeanor under state law. Ohio law directs officers to issue a summons for that offense unless the driver refuses to identify himself, but Omar provides valid identification and cooperates; Perez nevertheless makes a custodial arrest and searches Omar's jacket, finding stolen checks.
If Omar moves to suppress the checks on Fourth Amendment grounds because the arrest violated Ohio's summons-only statute, how should the court rule?
Explanation. The majority held that when officers have probable cause to believe a person committed a crime in their presence, a warrantless custodial arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment even if state law required only a summons. State restrictions do not alter the federal constitutional standard. Because the arrest was constitutionally permissible, a search of Omar's person incident to that custodial arrest was also valid without additional justification.