Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1983

Michigan v. Long

463 U.S. 1032 | 103 S. Ct. 3469 | 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201 | 1983 U.S. LEXIS 7 | 51 U.S.L.W. 5231

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, Michigan v. Long established both the vehicle-protective-search rule—allowing a limited weapons search of an accessible passenger compartment on reasonable suspicion—and the “plain statement” rule for Supreme Court review of state judgments that may rest on state law.

Background

Shortly after midnight, two deputies saw David Long driving erratically and at excessive speed on a rural road. Long turned onto a side road and swerved into a ditch. When the deputies approached, Long was slow to respond to requests for his license and registration and appeared to be under the influence. He then walked toward the open driver’s-side door. The deputies followed and saw a large hunting knife on the floorboard.

After frisking Long and finding no weapon on him, one deputy shined a flashlight into the car to look for other weapons. He saw an object protruding from beneath the front-seat armrest, lifted the armrest, and found an open leather pouch containing marijuana. Long was arrested. A later search of the passenger compartment found nothing else, and an impoundment search of the unlocked trunk uncovered about 75 pounds of marijuana.

The trial court denied Long’s suppression motion. The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the passenger-compartment search as a protective search under Terry v. Ohio and the trunk search as a valid inventory search. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that Terry did not justify a search of the car’s interior and suppressing the trunk evidence as fruit of the initial unlawful search. It referred to both the Fourth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution but relied almost entirely on federal precedent.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction when the Michigan Supreme Court referred to both the Federal and State Constitutions.

Holding

Yes. The Michigan decision did not clearly and expressly rest on an adequate and independent state-law ground.

Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed that it cannot review a state-court judgment that rests on an adequate and independent state ground, because a federal ruling then could not affect the judgment and would be advisory. But the Court found its prior methods for identifying such grounds—dismissing unclear cases, examining unfamiliar state law, or remanding for clarification—too inconsistent, inefficient, and intrusive.

The Court adopted a plain-statement rule. When a state-court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or is interwoven with federal law, the Court will presume that federal law controlled unless the state court clearly and expressly states that its result rests on a separate, adequate, and independent state ground. A state court may freely rely on federal decisions as persuasive guidance, but it must say plainly that federal law does not compel its result.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s opinion cited the Michigan Constitution, but otherwise relied exclusively on Terry and other federal cases. It cited no state cases as an independent basis for suppressing the evidence and expressly said that the intermediate court had misapplied Terry. The references to the state constitution therefore did not clearly establish an independent state-law basis for the judgment.

Issue #2

Whether officers may conduct a Terry protective search of a stopped vehicle’s passenger compartment without probable cause to arrest.

Holding

Yes. Officers may search those areas of a vehicle’s passenger compartment where a weapon may be hidden when specific and articulable facts reasonably support the belief that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons.

Reasoning

Terry permits a limited protective search when an officer reasonably believes that a person is armed and dangerous. Although Terry itself involved a patdown of the suspect’s person, its core principle is officer safety: police may take reasonable measures to neutralize a threat of physical harm during an on-the-spot investigative encounter. The Court declined to treat Terry’s facts as fixing an absolute person-only limit on every protective search.

Prior cases supported extending that safety rationale to the area accessible to a vehicle occupant. Pennsylvania v. Mimms and Adams v. Williams recognized the special dangers officers face in automobile encounters. Chimel and New York v. Belton likewise recognized that danger can arise from weapons within a suspect’s reach, not merely from weapons on the suspect’s body. The Court borrowed this access-to-weapons principle, while emphasizing that a Terry search remains limited to protection rather than evidence gathering.

The permissible search is narrower than a search incident to arrest. It must be confined to places in the passenger compartment where a weapon may be placed or hidden, and it requires a reasonable, articulable belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous and could obtain immediate control of a weapon. If officers lawfully discover contraband while conducting that limited weapons search, they need not ignore it.

The deputies had an objectively reasonable basis to fear that Long might access a weapon. It was late and rural; Long had driven at excessive speed into a ditch; he was unresponsive and appeared intoxicated; he moved toward the open car door; and the deputies saw a large hunting knife on the floorboard. The search was confined to the passenger compartment and to an area, including the leather pouch, capable of concealing a weapon.

The fact that Long was temporarily under police control did not eliminate the danger. He could have broken away and reached the car, or, if not arrested, could have returned to the car and gained access to weapons. Officers conducting an investigative detention at close range need not choose some less intrusive alternative before undertaking an otherwise justified protective search.

Issue #3

Whether the trunk search was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

Holding

The Court did not decide the question and remanded it to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Michigan Supreme Court had suppressed the trunk marijuana only as fruit of what it considered the unlawful passenger-compartment search. Because the Supreme Court held that the initial protective search was lawful, that rationale no longer resolved the trunk evidence.

The state supreme court had not decided whether the trunk search was independently valid as an inventory search under South Dakota v. Opperman or under another Fourth Amendment doctrine. The Court therefore remanded rather than decide an issue not passed upon by the state court whose judgment it was reviewing.

Concurrences

Justice Blackmun

Reasoning

Justice Blackmun joined the Court’s resolution of the facts, the vehicle-search issue, the trunk remand, and the judgment. He also agreed that jurisdiction existed in this particular case.

He did not join the new jurisdictional presumption announced in Part II. In his view, although national uniformity in federal criminal law is valuable, the Court’s plain-statement approach would not meaningfully improve efficiency and could increase the risk that the Court issues advisory opinions where a state-law ground actually sustains the result.

Dissents

Justice Brennan

Reasoning

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, agreed that the Court had jurisdiction but rejected the Fourth Amendment holding. He maintained that Terry created a narrow exception to probable cause: a brief investigative stop and a carefully limited frisk of the person for weapons. In his view, Terry’s language repeatedly confines its authorization to a patdown of outer clothing, not a search of a car and containers within it.

He argued that the majority improperly relied on Chimel and Belton. Those cases allowed broader searches incident to lawful custodial arrest, where probable cause supports the arrest and the person’s privacy interests are correspondingly diminished. A Terry stop, by contrast, lacks probable cause and must be strictly limited by the immediate need for self-protection; the majority improperly imported an arrest-based area-search rule into the reasonable-suspicion context.

Justice Brennan also viewed the majority’s new rule as insufficiently bounded. Virtually any part of a car, and many containers in it, can conceal a weapon. He believed the facts—late hour, rural setting, erratic driving, apparent intoxication, delayed responses, and a lawful hunting knife—might support concern about drunken driving but did not reasonably establish that Long was presently dangerous enough to justify searching the vehicle and pouch.

Finally, he argued that officers could have protected themselves through less intrusive means, such as keeping Long outside the car and asking him to identify the location of the registration. Allowing a vehicle and container search on reasonable suspicion, he warned, risks letting the narrow Terry exception swallow the ordinary Fourth Amendment rule that vehicle searches require probable cause.

Justice Stevens

Reasoning

Justice Stevens dissented from the Court’s jurisdictional ruling. He accepted that the Michigan state-law ground was adequate to support the judgment, but believed that, absent a clear basis for finding the state ground dependent on federal law, the Court should presume that the state court’s independent authority to interpret its own constitution controls the outcome.

He objected to the Court’s replacement of the traditional presumption against jurisdiction with a presumption in favor of jurisdiction. Historically, when a judgment could rest on either federal or adequate state grounds, the Court declined review unless it was clear that the federal issue controlled. In his view, respect for state courts, judicial restraint, avoidance of advisory opinions, and conservation of the Court’s resources all favored retaining that approach.

Justice Stevens stressed that Michigan’s courts had protected one of their own citizens under both federal and state constitutional provisions. Because correcting the Michigan court’s understanding of federal law would not necessarily change the state-law judgment, no federal right was endangered and the Court’s decision could not affect the ultimate disposition. The Court’s role is to correct judgments when necessary, not to revise state-court opinions merely to achieve abstract uniformity in federal law.