Ornelas v. United States
- Decided
- June 10, 1996
- Docket
- 95-5257
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 7,197 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that even plenary review of probable cause requires some deference to the expertise of local police — United States v. Michael Johnson (2001)
- holding that the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment are "fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts in which the standards are being assessed" — Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross (2006)
- holding that "as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal" — Kosilek v. Spencer (2014)
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
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners each pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. They reserved their right to appeal the District Court’s denial of their motion to suppress the cocaine found in their car. The District Court had found reasonable suspicion to stop and question petitioners as they entered their car, and probable cause to remove one of the interior panels where a package containing two kilograms of cocaine was found. The Court of Appeals opined that the findings of reasonable suspicion to stop, and probable cause to search, should be reviewed “deferentially,” and “for clear error.” We hold that the ultimate questions of reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo.
The facts are not disputed. In the early morning of a December day in 1992, Detective Michael Pautz, a 20-year veteran of the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department with 2 years specializing in drug enforcement, was conducting drug-interdiction surveillance in downtown Milwaukee. [*692] Pautz noticed a 1981 two-door Oldsmobile with California license plates in a motel parking lot. The car attracted Pautz’s attention for two reasons: because older model, two-door General Motors cars are a favorite with drug couriers because it is easy to hide things in them; and because California is a “source State” for drugs. Detective Pautz radioed his dispatcher to inquire about the car’s registration. The dispatcher informed Pautz that the owner was either Miguel Ledesma Ornelas or Miguel Ornelas Ledesma from San Jose, California; Pautz was unsure which name the dispatcher gave. Detective Pautz checked the motel registry and learned that an Ismael Ornelas accompanied by a second man had registered at 4 a.m., without reservations.
Cite this
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996)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.