Case law · Highest court · Federal

Draper v. United States

Decided
January 26, 1959
Docket
136
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 3,191 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds, overruled (not yet verified) · State v. Moultrie

What later courts said

  • holding that the existence of probable cause is analyzed based on "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officers' knowledge” — Graham v. Gagnon (2015)
  • concluding that “probable cause” and “reasonable 5 grounds” are “substantial equivalents of the same meaning” — Grae-El v. City of Seattle (2022)
  • finding that warrantless search and seizure subsequent to arrest had probable cause and reasonable grounds, and was thus allowed — Nicholas v. Goord (2005)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

Mr. Justice Whittaker delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was convicted of knowingly concealing and transporting narcotic drugs in Denver, Colorado, in violation of 35 Stat. 614, as amended, 21 U. S. C. § 174. His conviction was based in part on the use in evidence against him of two “envelopes containing [865 grains of] heroin” and a hypodermic syringe that had been taken from his person, following his arrest, by the arresting officer. Before the trial, he moved to suppress that evidence as having been secured through an unlawful search and seizure. After hearing, the District Court found that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest petitioner without a warrant and that the subsequent search and seizure were therefore incident to a lawful arrest, and overruled the motion to suppress. 146 F. Supp. 689. At the subsequent trial, that evidence was offered and, over petitioner’s renewed objection, was received in evidence, and the trial resulted, as we have said, in petitioner’s conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, 248 F. 2d 295, and certiorari was sought on the sole ground that the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment[1] and therefore the use of the heroin in evidence vitiated the conviction. We granted the writ to determine that question. 357 U. S. 935.

[*309] The evidence offered at the hearing on the motion to suppress was not substantially disputed. It established that one Marsh, a federal narcotic agent with 29 years’ experience, was stationed at Denver; that one Hereford had been engaged as a “special employee” of the Bureau of Narcotics at Denver for about six months, and from time to time gave information to Marsh regarding violations of the narcotic laws, for which Hereford was paid small sums of money, and that Marsh had always found the information given by Hereford to be accurate and reliable. On September 3, 1956, Hereford told Marsh that James Draper (petitioner) recently had taken up abode at a stated address in Denver and “was peddling narcotics to several addicts” in that city. Four days later, on September 7, Hereford told Marsh “that Draper had gone to Chicago the day before [September 6] by train [and] that he was going to bring back three ounces of heroin [and] that he would return to Denver either on the morning of the 8th of September or the morning of the 9th of September also by train.” Hereford also gave Marsh a detailed physical description of Draper and of the clothing he was wearing,[2] and said that he would be carrying “a tan zipper bag,” and that he habitually “walked real fast.”

Statutes cited

Cite this

Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.