U.S. Supreme Court
Preston v. United States,376U.S. 364 (1964)Preston v. UnitedStatesNo. 163Argued February 25,1964Decided March 23,1964376U.S. 364CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATESCOURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SIXTHCIRCUITSyllabusPetitioner and two companions, who had been seated for severalhours in a parked car, were arrested by the police for vagrancy,searched for weapons, and taken to the police station. The officershad the car towed to a garage, and soon thereafter they wentthemselves to the garage and, for the first time, searched the car.Various articles found in the car were later turned over to federalauthorities and used as evidence in a trial in federal courtresulting in petitioner's conviction of conspiracy to rob afederally insured bank.
Held: the evidence obtained in the search of the carwithout a warrant was inadmissible because, being too remote intime or place to be treated as incidental to the arrest, it failedto meet the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. Pp.
376 U. S.364-368.305 F.2d 172 reversed and remanded.MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.Petitioner and three others were convicted in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on a charge ofconspiracy to rob a federally insured bank in violation of 18U.S.C. § 2113, the conviction having been based largely on evidenceobtained by the search of a motorcar. The Court of Appeals for theSixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the contentions, timely made inthe trial and appellate courts, that
Page 376 U. S. 365both the original arrest, on a charge of vagrancy, and thesubsequent search and seizure had violated the Fourth Amendment.305 F.2d 172. We granted certiorari. 373 U.S. 931. In the view wetake of the case, we need not decide whether the arrest was valid,since we hold that the search and seizure was not.The police of Newport, Kentucky, received a telephone complaintat 3 o'clock one morning that "three suspicious men actingsuspiciously" had been seated in a motorcar parked in a businessdistrict since 10 o'clock the evening before. Four policemenstraightaway went to the place where the car was parked and foundpetitioner and two companions. The officers asked the three men whythey were parked there, but the men gave answers which the officerstestified were unsatisfactory and evasive. All three men admittedthat they were unemployed; all of them together had only 25 cents.One of the men said that he had bought the car the day before(which later turned out to be true), but he could not produce anytitle. They said that their reason for being there was to meet atruck driver who would pass through Newport that night, but theycould not identify the company he worked for, could not say whathis truck looked like, and did not know what time he would arrive.The officers arrested the three men for vagrancy, searched them forweapons, and took them to police headquarters. The car, which hadnot been searched at the time of the arrest, was driven by anofficer to the station, from which it was towed to a garage. Soonafter the men had been booked at the station, some of the policeofficers went to the garage to search the car, and found two loadedrevolvers in the glove compartment. They were unable to open thetrunk, and returned to the station, where a detective told one ofthe officers to go back and try to get into the trunk. The officerdid so, was able to enter the trunk through the back seat of thecar, and in
Page 376 U. S. 366the trunk found caps, women's stockings (one with mouth and eyeholes), rope, pillow slips, an illegally manufactured license plateequipped to be snapped over another plate, and other items. Afterthe search, one of petitioner's companions confessed that he andtwo others -- he did not name petitioner -- intended to rob a bankin Berry, Kentucky, a town about 51 miles from Newport. At this,the police called the Federal Bureau of Investigation into the caseand turned over to the Bureau the articles found in the car. It wasthe use of these articles, over timely objections, which raised theFourth Amendment question we here consider.The Amendment provides:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but uponprobable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularlydescribing the place to be searched, and the persons or things tobe seized."The question whether evidence obtained by state officers andused against a defendant in a federal trial was obtained byunreasonable search and seizure is to be judged as if the searchand seizure had been made by federal officers.
Elkins v. UnitedStates,364 U. S. 206(1960). Our cases make it clear that searches of motorcars mustmeet the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment beforeevidence obtained as a result of such searches is admissible.
E.g., Carroll v. United States,267 U.S. 132 (1925);
Brinegar v. United States,338 U. S. 160(1949). Common sense dictates, of course, that questions involvingsearches of motorcars or other things readily moved cannot betreated as identical to questions arising out of searches of fixedstructures like houses. For this reason, what may be anunreasonable search of
Page 376 U. S. 367a house may be reasonable in the case of a motorcar.
SeeCarroll v. United States, supra, 267 U.S. at
267 U. S. 153.But even in the case of motorcars, the test still is "was thesearch unreasonable?" Therefore, we must inquire whether the factsof this case are such as to fall within any of the exceptions tothe constitutional rule that a search warrant must be had before asearch may be made.It is argued that the search and seizure was justified asincidental to a lawful arrest. Unquestionably, when a person islawfully arrested, the police have the right, without a searchwarrant, to make a contemporaneous search of the person of theaccused for weapons or for the fruits of or implements used tocommit the crime.
Weeks v. United States,232 U.S. 383,
232 U. S. 392(1914);
Agnello v. United States,269 U. S.20,
269 U. S. 30(1925). This right to search and seize without a search warrantextends to things under the accused's immediate control,
Carroll v. United States, supra, 267 U.S. at
267 U. S. 158,and, to an extent depending on the circumstances of the case, tothe place where he is arrested,
Agnello v. United States,supra, 269 U.S. at
269 U. S. 30;
Marron v. United States,275 U. S. 192,
275 U. S. 199(1927);
United States v. Rabinowitz,339 U. S.56,
339 U. S. 61-62(1950). The rule allowing contemporaneous searches is justified,for example, by the need to seize weapons and other things whichmight be used to assault an officer or effect an escape, as well asby the need to prevent the destruction of evidence of the crime --things which might easily happen where the weapon or evidence is onthe accused's person or under his immediate control. But thesejustifications are absent where a search is remote in time or placefrom the arrest. Once an accused is under arrest and in custody,then a search made at another place, without a warrant, is simplynot incident to the arrest.
Agnello v. United States,supra, 269 U.S. at
269 U. S. 31.Here, we may assume, as the Government urges, that, either becausethe arrests were valid or because the police had
Page 376 U. S. 368probable cause to think the car stolen, the police had the rightto search the car when they first came on the scene. But this doesnot decide the question of the reasonableness of a search at alater time and at another place.
See Stoner v. California,376 U. S. 483. Thesearch of the car was not undertaken until petitioner and hiscompanions had been arrested and taken in custody to the policestation and the car had been towed to the garage. At this point,there was no danger that any of the men arrested could have usedany weapons in the car or could have destroyed any evidence of acrime -- assuming that there are articles which can be the "fruits"or "implements" of the crime of vagrancy.
Cf. United States v.Jeffers,342 U. S. 48,
342 U. S. 51-52(1951). Nor, since the men were under arrest at the police stationand the car was in police custody at a garage, was there any dangerthat the car would be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction.
See Carroll v. United States, supra, 267 U.S. at
267 U. S. 153.We think that the search was too remote in time or place to havebeen made as incidental to the arrest and conclude, therefore, thatthe search of the car without a warrant failed to meet the test ofreasonableness under the Fourth Amendment, rendering the evidenceobtained as a result of the search inadmissible.
Reversed and remanded.
