Wyoming v. Houghton
s26 U.S. 29s (1999)
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
Iir the early morning hours of July 23,1995, a Wyorning Highway patrol officer
stopped an autotnobile for speeding and driving with a faulty brakelight. Tlr..,
three passengers in the front seat of the car: David Young (the driver), his girlfriend, and
*.r*
Sandra Houghton. While questioning Young, the officer noticed a hypodeirnic syringe in
Young's shirt pocket. He left the three under the supervision of two backup olficers as he
went to get gloves from his patrol car. Upon his return, he told Young to siep out of the
car and place the syringe on the hood. The officer then asked Young why he had a
syringe, with refreshing candor, Young replied that he used it to tal.s dr-ugs.
At this poiirt, the backup officers ordered the two feinale purr.,rg.., out of the car
and asked them for identification. Sandra falsely identified helseif as "sandra James,, and
state that she did not have any identification. Because of Young's admission, the officer
searched the passenger compartment of the car for contraband. On the back seat he fotind
a plirse, which Sandra clairned as hers. The officer removed fi'om the pllrse a r*rallet,
containing Sandra's driver's license, identifying hel propelly as Sandra I(. I-Ioughton.
When he asked her why she had lied about her name, she replied, "ln case things we6t
Contiiruing ltis search of the purse, thc officer fouird a brown pouch and a blar:k
dclied ov,ni;rg ihe i;ouch, but adniitl.ec! she 1,,rzile616e biirck rr,iallel" l-'trie
l:Lcu'n pouch .laad 50 ce;s o1'tnetliamphetamine"'-lhe bkir:k wallet haclpaiapiienialin,
a6cl ::t
sylittge with l0 ccs of metha.mphetamine" The off'rcr:r louncl fiesli neecjle-tr-aok marks on
''t'tal'|el Sanch:a
Sandra's arms. Sandra was arrested.
She vvas charged rvith a felony for her drug possession. She filed a motion in the
trial courl to suppress the evidence because the police officer violated her Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment i'iglits. Tiie jiidge denied her irioiion staiing tirat 'the ofr'icer haci
probable cause to search. She was convicted.
The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the conviction because they felt the search
of her purse violated the Fourth and Foufteenth Amendment because the officer didn,t
have probable cause to search her purse because the officer "knew or should have known
that the purse did not belong to the driver, but to one of the passengers and there was no
probable cause to search the passengers' belongings.,,
The Fourth Amendment protects the "the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The
issue for the Court to determine is if there is probable cause to search a car, is it
permissible to search a passenger's purse.
Nobody is denying that the police offlrcers had probable cause to search the car.
Carroll v. United States,267 U.S. 132 (1925) established that law enforcement officials
with probable cause may conduct a search of a car without a warrant. In that case which
occurred during Prohibition the Supreme Court allowed police to search for illegal liquor.
ln United States v. Ross,456 U.S. 798 (1952), we upheld as reasonable the
warrantless search of a paper bag and leather pouch found in the trunk of the defendant,s
car by officers who had probable cause to believe that the trunk contained drugs. Ross
established that "if probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle,
justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may-conceal the
it
object ofthe search".
By balancing the interests of the government and Sandra Houghton we find in
favor of the government in allowing the search of passengers' belongings. Drivers and
passengeis possess a reduced expcctation of privacy in items they have in a car because
cars travel on public streets, seldom hold important personal items, can be stopped by the
police, and could be in an accident that exposes everything to the public.
On the other hand, the government's interest in searching is very large. Effective
law enforcement would be impailed if police were forced to ask numerous questions of
every passenger to deterinine if the passenger was involved in some criminal activity
with the driver. Once a "passenger's property" exception to car searches became widely
known, one would expect every passengers involved in the crime to claim everything as
their own.
\Me hold that police officers with probable cause to search a car may inspect
passengers' belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the objeet of the
search. The judgment of the Wyoming Supreme Court is revelsed.
It is so oi'dered.
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg
join, dissenting.
Today, instead of following the settled difference betrveen drivers and passengers,
tlie Court iirakes a nev/ rule that is based on a diflerence between property contained in
clothing ivoi'n by a passenger aird pt'operty contained in a passenger's pui.se or-brief'casr:.
The trooper in this case had to have probable cause to belie',ze that her purse contained
contraband. A rule recluiring a warrant or probable cause for the passenger and their
belongings is every bit as siinple as the Court's rule; it simply protects more privacy.
T
fiqrrj
rllrr uroovrrt.
diccarrf
r recnanf
a vuyvvLr