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
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.