UNITED STATES v. JOHNS ET AL.
No. 83-1625
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 28, 1984—Decided January 21, 1985
469 U.S. 478
Alan I. Horowitz argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Trott, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, Joshua I. Schwartz, and Gloria C. Phares.
William G. Walker argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Michael L. Piccarreta, Peter Kеller, Nancy G. Postero, Walter B. Nash III, and Robert J. Hirsh.
JUSTICE O‘CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
In United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982), the Court held that if police officers have probable cause to search a lawfully stopped vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of any containers found inside that may conceal the
I
Pursuant to an investigation of a suspected drug smuggling operation, a United States Customs officer went to respondent Duarte‘s residence in Tucson, Ariz., where he saw two pickup trucks. The Customs officer observed the trucks drive away, and he contacted other officers who conducted ground and air surveillance of the trucks as they traveled 100 miles to a remote private airstrip near Bowie, Ariz., approximately 50 miles from the Mexican border. Soon after the trucks arrived, a small aircraft landed. Although the Customs officers on the ground were unable to see what transpired, their counterparts in the air informed them that one of the trucks had approached the airplanе. After a short time, the aircraft departed. A second small aircraft landed and then departed.
Two Customs officers on the ground came closer and parked their vehicles about 30 yards from the two trucks. One officer approached to investigate and saw an individual at the rear of one of the trucks covering the contents with a blanket. The officer ordered respondents to come out from behind the trucks and to lie on the ground. As he and the other officer walked towards the trucks, they smelled the odor of marihuana. They saw in the back of the trucks
The Customs officers did not search the pickup trucks at the desert airstrip. Instead, after arresting the respondents who were at the scene, the Customs officers took the trucks back to Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) headquarters in Tucson. The packages were removed from the trucks and placed in a DEA warehouse. Without obtaining a search warrant, DEA agents opened some of the packages and took samples that later proved to be marihuana. Although the record leaves unclear precisely when the agents opened the packages, the parties do not dispute the conclusion of the Court of Appeals, 707 F. 2d, at 1095, that the search occurred three days after the packages were seized from the pickup trucks.
A federal grand jury in the District of Arizona indicted respondents for conspiracy to possess and possession of marihuana with intent to distribute, in violation of
Respondents argue that we should affirm the suppression of the marihuana on the ground that the Customs officers never had probable cause to conduct a vehicle search, and therefore Ross is inapрlicable to this case. Instead, respondents contend that United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1 (1977), establishes that the warrantless search was unlawful. These arguments are not persuasive. The events surrounding the rendezvous of the aircraft and the pickup trucks at the isolated desert airstrip indicated that the vehicles were involved in smuggling activity. The Customs officers on the ground were unable to observe the airplanes after they landed, and consequently did not see the packages loaded into the pickup trucks. After the officers came closer and detected the distinct odor of marihuana, they had probable cause to believe that the vehicles contained contraband. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 149, 162 (1925). Given their experience with drug smuggling cases, the officers no doubt suspected that the scent was emanating from the рackages that they observed in the back of the pickup trucks. The officers, however, were unaware of the packages until they approached the trucks, and contraband might well have been hidden elsewhere in the vehicles. We agree with the Court of Appeals, see 707 F. 2d, at 1097, that the Customs officers had probable cause to believe that not only the packages but also the vehicles themselves contained contraband.
Under the circumstances of this case, respondents’ reliance on Chadwick is misplaced. In Chadwick, police officers had probable cause to believe that a footlocker contained contraband. As soon as the footlocker was placed in the trunk of an automobile, the officers seized the footlocker and later searched it without obtaining a warrant. The Court in Chadwick refused to hold that probable cause generally supports the warrantless search of luggage. 433 U. S., at 11-13. Chadwick, however, did not involve the exception
Respondents further contend that the record fails to show that a vehicle search ever in fact occurred. This argument is meritless. It is true that the trucks were not searched at thе scene, and the record leaves unclear whether the Customs officers thoroughly searched the trucks after they were taken to DEA headquarters. The record does show, however, that the packages were unloaded from the trucks. Thus, the Customs officers conducted a vehicle search at least to the extent of entering the trucks and removing the packages. The possibility that thе officers did not search the vehicles more extensively does not affect our conclusion that the packages were removed pursuant to a vehicle search. The issue presented by this case is whether the subsequent warrantless search was unreasonable merely because it occurred three days after the packages were unloaded from the pickup trucks.
III
Our analysis of the central issue in this case begins with our decision in Ross. There the Court observed that the exception to the warrant requirement recognized by Carroll allows a search of the same scope as could be authorized by a magistrate. 456 U. S., at 823, 825. “A warrant to search a vehicle would support a search of every part of the vehicle that might contain the object of the search.” Id., at 821. Although probable cause may not generally justify a war-
Ross, as the Court of Appeals acknowledged, 707 F. 2d, at 1098, establishes that the Customs officers could have lawfully searched the packages when they were first discovered inside the trucks at the desert airstrip. Moreover, our previous decisions indicate that the officers acted permissibly by waiting until they returned to DEA headquarters before they searched the vehicles and removed their contents. See id., at 1099. There is no requirement that the warrantless search of a vehicle occur contemporaneously with its lawful seizure. Texas v. White, 423 U. S. 67, 68 (1975) (per curiam); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 52 (1970). “[T]he justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized.” Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U. S. 259, 261 (1982) (per curiam). A vehicle lawfully in police custody may be searched on the basis of probable cause to believe that it contains contraband, and there is no requirement of exigent circumstances to justify such a warrantless search. Id., at 261-262; see also Florida v. Meyers, 466 U. S. 380 (1984) (per curiam).
The Court of Appeals concluded that Ross allows warrantless searches of containers only if the search occurs “immediately” as part of the vehicle inspection or “soon thereafter.” See 707 F. 2d, at 1099. Neither Ross nor our other vehicle search cases suggest any such limitation. Ross involved the
Ross, as the Court of Appeals noted, did observe in a footnote that if police may immediately search a vehicle on the street without a warrant, “a search soon thereafter at the police stаtion is permitted if the vehicle is impounded.” 456 U. S., at 807, n. 9. When read in context, these remarks plainly do not suggest that searches of containers discovered in the course of a vehicle search are subject to temporal restrictions not applicable to the vehicle search itself. Moreover, Ross expressly refused to limit the application of the Carroll exception by requiring police officers to secure a warrant before they searched containers found inside a lawfully stopped vehicle. 456 U. S., at 821, n. 28. “The scope of a warrantless search of an automobile . . . is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may
The approach of the Court of Appeals not only lacks support in our decision in Ross, but it also fails to further the privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment. Whether respondents ever had a privacy interest in the packages reeking of marihuana is debatable. We have previously observed that certain containers may not support a reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance, Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753, 764-765, n. 13 (1979), and based on this rationale the Fourth Circuit has held that “plain odor” may justify a warrantless search of a container. See United States v. Haley, 669 F. 2d 201, 203-204, and n. 3, cert. denied, 457 U. S. 1117 (1982). The Ninth Circuit, however, rejected this approach, 707 F. 2d, at 1096, and the Government has not pursued this issue on appeal. We need not determine whether respondents possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in the packages. Because the Customs officers had probable cause to believe that the pickup trucks contained contraband, any expectation of privacy in the vehicles or their contents was subject to the аuthority of the officers to conduct a warrantless search. See Ross, 456 U. S., at 823.
The warrantless search of the packages was not unreasonable merely because the Customs officers returned to Tucson and placed the packages in a DEA warehouse rather than immediately opening them. Cf. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 119-120 (1984) (no privacy interest in package that was in possession of and had been examined by private party); Michigan v. Thomas, supra, at 261. The practical effect of the opposite conclusion would only be to direct police officers to search immediately all containers that they discover in the course of a vehicle search. Cf. Ross, supra,
We do not suggest that police officers may indefinitely retain possession of a vehicle and its contents before they complete a vehicle search. Cf. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 523 (1971) (WHITE, J., dissenting). Nor do we foreclose the possibility that the ownеr of a vehicle or its contents might attempt to prove that delay in the completion of a vehicle search was unreasonable because it adversely affected a privacy or possessory interest. Cf. United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983). We note that in this case there was probable cause to believe that the trucks contained contraband and there is no plausible argument that the object of the search could not have been concealed in the packages. Respondents do not challenge the legitimacy of the seizure of the trucks or the packages, and they never sought return of the property. Thus, respondents have not even alleged, much less proved, that the delay in the search of packages adversely affected legitimate interests prоtected by the Fourth Amendment. Inasmuch as the Government was entitled to seize the packages and could have searched them immediately without a warrant, we conclude that the warrantless search three days after the packages were placed in the DEA warehouse was reasonable and consistent with our
Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting.
Consistently with my disagreement with the Court in United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982); see id., at 827 (MARSHALL, J., joined by BRENNAN, J., dissenting), I dissent from today‘s unwarranted extension of Ross. As a general rule the Fourth Amendment proscribes the warrantless search of closed packages and containеrs. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 10-11 (1977). Even when the authorities have probable cause to believe that a container holds contraband or evidence of a crime, the Fourth Amendment generally permits no more than “seizure of the property, pending issuance of a warrant to examine its contents, if the exigencies of the situation demand it . . . .” United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 701 (1983). That a closed package is located within an automobile provides no reason for departing from the general rule that no more than seizure pending issuance of a warrant is constitutionally permissible. Ross, supra, at 831 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting) (“[T]he traditional rationales for the automobile exception plainly do not support extending it to the search of a container found inside a vehicle“). A fortiori a warrantless search occurring three days after seizure of a package found in an automobile violates the Fourth Amendment.
But even accepting Ross, I disagree with today‘s blithe extension of the temporal scope of a permissible search on
It also cannot pass without comment that the Court has addressed an issue not before us. The Court of Appeals rejected the Government‘s argument that the “plain odor” of marihuana emanating from the packages obviated the need for a warrant to search them, 707 F. 2d 1093, 1095-1096 (1983), and the Government has not renewed the argument here. Yet while properly noting that the “plain odor” issue is not before us, see ante, at 481, the Court suggests a very definite view with respect to the merits of this issue. Citing the Fourth Circuit case accepting the “plain odor” exception to the warrant requirement, United States v. Haley, 669 F. 2d 201, 203-204, and n. 3, cert. denied, 457 U. S. 1117 (1982), the Court today opines that “[w]hether respondents ever had a privacy interest in the packages reeking of marihuana is debatable.” Ante, at 486. This is an issue which is the subject of a significant divergence of opinion in the lower courts. Compare United States v. Haley, supra, with United States v. Dien, 609 F. 2d 1038, 1045 (CA2 1979). And most importantly, today‘s offhand commentary contradicts this Court‘s only precedent on the question. See Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 13 (1948) (“[O]dors alone do not authorize a search without warrant“). In these circumstances, surely it is improper for the Court without briefing or argument to suggest how it would resolve this important and unsettled question of law.
I dissent.