Michigan v. Long
| Michigan v. Long | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued February 23, 1983 Decided July 6, 1983 |
|
| Full case name | Michigan v. David Kerk Long |
| Citations | 463 U.S. 1032 (more)
103 S. Ct. 3469; 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201; 51 U.S.L.W. 5231
|
| Prior history | Conviction upheld, 94 Mich. App. 338, 288 N.W.2d 629. Reversed, 413 Mich., at 472, 320 N.W.2d, at 869. Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan, 459 U.S. 904. |
| Subsequent history | 413 Mich. 461, 320 N.W.2d 866, reversed and remanded. |
| Holding | |
| The protective search of the passenger compartment of respondent's car was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by Burger, White, Powell, Rehnquist, Blackmun (Parts I, III, IV, V only) |
| Concur/dissent | Blackmun |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with reasonable suspicion. The case also clarified and narrowed the extent of adequate and independent state ground, allowing U.S. Supreme Court review of state supreme court decisions unless they explicitly appealed to state laws.
David Long was questioned by police after driving his car off a road and into a shallow ditch in Barry County, Michigan. Officers said he acted erratically and that he, "appeared to be under the influence of something." Noticing a hunting knife on the floor of the car, they conducted a "Terry" protective patdown (named after Terry v. Ohio), but they turned up no weapons. They then conducted a "protective search" of the car with the same justification: searching for weapons. Inside the car, police found an exposed bag of marijuana. In the trunk they found approximately 75 pounds (34 kg) more, and Long was arrested for drug possession.
Long argued during his trial that the evidence found in his car should be suppressed because the search was unconstitutional. The same argument was advanced during his appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. In each case, the court ruled against suppressing the evidence.
However, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed these rulings. Relying largely on federal precedent, especially Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the "protective search" violated the Fourth Amendment, and thus the "poisonous fruit" of the illegal search must be discarded.
...
Wikipedia