Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1959

Draper v. United States

358 U.S. 307 | 79 S. Ct. 329 | 3 L. Ed. 2d 327 | 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1607

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a reliable informant's detailed tip, substantially corroborated by police observation, can establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest and a search incident to that arrest.

Background

Federal narcotics agent Marsh had received reliable information from Hereford, a paid Bureau of Narcotics “special employee” whose prior tips had always proved accurate. Hereford said that James Draper had gone from Denver to Chicago by train to obtain three ounces of heroin and would return by train on either September 8 or 9. He also supplied a detailed description of Draper, his clothing, a tan zipper bag he would carry, and his habit of walking very fast.

Marsh watched incoming Chicago trains on September 8 without seeing Draper. On September 9, Marsh and a Denver police officer saw a man matching Hereford’s description exactly get off a Chicago train, carrying the specified tan zipper bag and walking quickly toward the exit. They stopped and arrested him without a warrant. A search of Draper’s person and bag, conducted incident to the arrest, produced heroin and a hypodermic syringe.

Draper was convicted in federal district court of concealing and transporting narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174. The district court denied his pretrial motion to suppress, finding probable cause for the warrantless arrest and therefore a lawful search incident to arrest. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari solely to decide whether the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether an officer may consider reliable hearsay from an informant in determining probable cause for a warrantless arrest.

Holding

Yes. Reliable hearsay may be considered in deciding whether probable cause exists, even though that hearsay would not itself be admissible to prove guilt at trial.

Reasoning

The Court relied on Brinegar v. United States, which distinguishes the proof needed to establish guilt at trial from the proof needed to establish probable cause. Probable cause does not demand trial-quality evidence or evidence sufficient to convict; it requires a practical basis for a reasonable officer to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.

Hereford's information was hearsay to Marsh, but that did not make it irrelevant to probable cause. Hereford was employed to provide narcotics information, and Marsh had consistently found his prior information accurate and reliable. The officer therefore had reasonably trustworthy information that he could properly use in assessing whether to arrest Draper.

Issue #2

Whether Marsh had probable cause, or statutory “reasonable grounds,” to arrest Draper without a warrant, making the ensuing search and seizure lawful.

Holding

Yes. The reliable tip, combined with Marsh's corroboration of its detailed predictions, gave him probable cause to believe Draper was carrying heroin; the arrest and search incident to it were lawful.

Reasoning

The narcotics-arrest statute authorized a warrantless arrest when an officer had “reasonable grounds” to believe a narcotics violation had occurred or was occurring. The Court treated that standard as substantially equivalent to the Fourth Amendment's probable-cause requirement.

Marsh personally confirmed virtually every detail of Hereford's prediction: Draper arrived on a train from Chicago on the predicted date; he precisely matched the informant's physical and clothing description; he carried the described tan zipper bag; and he walked rapidly as forecast. This detailed corroboration supported the reliability not merely of the innocent descriptive details, but also of Hereford's assertion that Draper had completed his heroin-buying trip.

Probable cause concerns practical probabilities on which reasonable and prudent people act, not technical proof. Because the informant was proven reliable and his specific prediction was so thoroughly verified, Marsh reasonably could believe the one unverified portion—that Draper possessed heroin—was also true.

Because the warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause, the search of Draper's person and bag was a valid search incident to arrest. The heroin and syringe were therefore lawfully seized, properly admitted at trial, and sufficient to leave Draper's conviction undisturbed.

Dissents

Justice Douglas

Reasoning

Justice Douglas argued that the arrest rested on an informer's accusation rather than on evidence of criminal conduct known to the arresting officers. The officers corroborated only innocent details—Draper's appearance, train arrival, bag, and fast walking—not facts showing that he possessed heroin or had committed a narcotics offense.

In Douglas's view, an officer who makes a warrantless arrest must have facts supporting an inference of guilt, not simply a reliable informant's unexplained conclusion. Marsh did not know how Hereford acquired his information and did not ask for the underlying facts. Thus, the officer had no evidentiary basis that he could present under oath to a magistrate as grounds for an arrest warrant.

Douglas stressed the Fourth Amendment's historical purpose of protecting citizens against arrest on suspicion and whispered accusations. He reasoned that warrantless arrests should not receive a lower standard than arrests authorized by a neutral magistrate, particularly because probable cause protects officers even when the arrested person ultimately proves innocent.

The subsequent discovery of heroin could not validate the arrest retroactively. A search is lawful or unlawful when it begins, Douglas maintained, and the police cannot use evidence uncovered by an arrest and search to supply the probable cause that was missing beforehand.