Case law · Highest court · Federal

United States v. Place

Decided
June 20, 1983
Docket
81-1617
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 3,374 timesNo negative treatment found in this library

What later courts said

  • holding that a “canine sniff’ to determine whether luggage contained narcotics did not intrude upon any legitimate expectation of privacy — Rodriguez v. State (2003)
  • holding that an officer's diligent pursuit of an investigation during the detention is a factor in determining the reasonableness of an investigatory stop — People v. Rodriguez (1997)
  • holding that exposure of luggage in a public place to a trained canine does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment — United States v. Jerry Ford (1994)

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

Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the issue whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement authorities from temporarily [*698] detaining personal luggage for exposure to a trained narcotics detection dog on the basis of reasonable suspicion that the luggage contains narcotics. Given the enforcement problems associated with the detection of narcotics trafficking and the minimal intrusion that a properly limited detention would entail, we conclude that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit such a detention. On the facts of this case, however, we hold that the police conduct exceeded the bounds of a permissible investigative detention of the luggage. pH Respondent Raymond J. Place’s behavior aroused the suspicions of law enforcement officers as he waited in line at the Miami International Airport to purchase a ticket to New York’s La Guardia Airport. As Place proceeded to the gate for his flight, the agents approached him and requested his airline ticket and some identification. Place complied with the request and consented to a search of the two suitcases he had checked. Because his flight was about to depart, however, the agents decided not to search the luggage.

Prompted by Place’s parting remark that he had recognized that they were police, the agents inspected the address tags on the checked luggage and noted discrepancies in the two street addresses. Further investigation revealed that neither address existed and that the telephone number Place had given the airline belonged to a third address on the same street. On the basis of their encounter with Place and this information, the Miami agents called Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) authorities in New York to relay their information about Place.

Statutes cited

Cite this

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)

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.