United States v. Ross
United States v. Ross is a significant Supreme Court case that addresses the legality of warrantless searches of vehicles, particularly concerning the Fourth Amendment. The case emerged from an incident where police officers searched a car trunk and discovered heroin inside a closed paper bag, along with cash in a zippered pouch. The ruling, decided by a 6-3 vote, established that police could conduct warrantless searches of packages found in automobiles if they had probable cause. This decision represented a departure from the previous case, Robbins v. California, which required that only items in plain view could be searched without a warrant. Dissenting opinions emphasized concerns about the authority given to police officers, with arguments suggesting that they should not have the same powers as magistrates when determining probable cause. The case has important implications for discussions on privacy, law enforcement practices, and the balance of power between individual rights and police authority in the United States.
United States v. Ross
Date: June 1, 1982
Citation: 456 U.S. 798
Issues: Fourth Amendment; automobile searches
Significance: Through this decision, the Supreme Court broadly increased the right of police officers to search automobiles without a search warrant as long as they have probable cause.
In Robbins v. California (1981), the Supreme Court ruled that police officers could conduct a warrantless search of a package in an automobile only if the contents of the package were in plain view. However, in Ross, police conducting a search of a car trunk had opened a closed paper bag to discover that it contained heroin. Later, they also found a zippered pouch that contained cash in the trunk. A lower court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, and he was convicted of possessing heroin with intent to sell.
By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court largely abandoned Robbins and ruled that packages in automobiles could be searched without a warrant if the police had probable cause the same standard a magistrate should use in issuing a warrant. Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented, arguing that a police officer was not trained as a magistrate and should not be given the same power as a magistrate to determine probable cause. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., joined in the dissent, and Justice Byron R. White agreed with it.