United States Supreme Court
WHREN Et al. v. UNITED STATES
517 U. S. 806 (1996)
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 95–5841. Argued April 17, 1996—Decided June 10, 1996
Plainclothes policemen patrolling a “high drug area” in an unmarked vehi cle observed a truck driven by petitioner Brown waiting at a stop sign at an intersection for an unusually long time; the truck then turned suddenly, without signaling, and sped off at an “unreasonable” speed. The ofﬁcers stopped the vehicle, assertedly to warn the driver about trafﬁc violations, and upon approaching the truck observed plastic bags of crack cocaine in petitioner Whren’s hands. Petitioners were ar rested. Prior to trial on federal drug charges, they moved for suppres sion of the evidence, arguing that the stop had not been justiﬁed by either a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe petitioners were engaged in illegal drug-dealing activity, and that the ofﬁcers’ trafﬁc-violation ground for approaching the truck was pretextual. The motion to suppress was denied, petitioners were convicted, and the Court of Appeals afﬁrmed.
Held: The temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to be lieve that he has violated the trafﬁc laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a rea sonable ofﬁcer would not have stopped the motorist absent some addi tional law enforcement objective. Pp. 809–819.
make clear that the Fourth Amendment’s concern with “reasonableness” allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent. See, e. g., Robinson, supra, at 236. Nor can the Fourth Amendment’s protections be thought to vary from place to place and from time to time, which would be the consequence of assessing the reasonableness of police conduct in light of local law enforcement practices. Pp. 813–816.
53 F. 3d 371, afﬁrmed.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Lisa Burget Wright argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the briefs were A. J. Kramer, Neil H. Jaffee, and G. Allen Dale.
James A. Feldman argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Days, Acting Assist ant Attorney General Keeney, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Paul A. Engelmayer.*
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were ﬁled for the American Civil Liberties Union by Steven R. Shapiro and Susan N. Herman; and for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Natman Schaye and Walter B. Nash III.
Briefs of amici curiae urging afﬁrmance were ﬁled for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger and Charles L. Hobson; and for the State of California et al. by Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of California, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney Gen eral, Ronald A. Bass, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Joan Killeen and Catherine A. Rivlin, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, and Christina V. Kuo, Deputy Attorney General; and by the Attorneys Gen eral for their respective States as follows: M. Jane Brady of Delaware,
Opinion of the Court
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we decide whether the temporary detention of a motorist who the police have probable cause to believe has committed a civil trafﬁc violation is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable sei zures unless a reasonable ofﬁcer would have been motivated to stop the car by a desire to enforce the trafﬁc laws.
On the evening of June 10, 1993, plainclothes vice-squad ofﬁcers of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police De partment were patrolling a “high drug area” of the city in an unmarked car. Their suspicions were aroused when they passed a dark Pathﬁnder truck with temporary license plates and youthful occupants waiting at a stop sign, the driver looking down into the lap of the passenger at his right. The truck remained stopped at the intersection for what seemed an unusually long time—more than 20 seconds. When the police car executed a U-turn in order to head back toward the truck, the Pathﬁnder turned suddenly to its right, with out signaling, and sped off at an “unreasonable” speed. The policemen followed, and in a short while overtook the Path ﬁnder when it stopped behind other trafﬁc at a red light. They pulled up alongside, and Ofﬁcer Ephraim Soto stepped out and approached the driver’s door, identifying himself as a police ofﬁcer and directing the driver, petitioner Brown, to put the vehicle in park. When Soto drew up to the driver’s
Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Deborah T. Poritz of New Jersey, Dennis C. Vacco of New York, Michael F. Easley of North Carolina, Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio, W. A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Charles W. Burson of Tennessee, and Jan Graham of Utah.
Richard S. Michaels and Jeff Rubin ﬁled a brief for the California District Attorney’s Association as amicus curiae.
Opinion of the Court
window, he immediately observed two large plastic bags of what appeared to be crack cocaine in petitioner Whren’s hands. Petitioners were arrested, and quantities of several types of illegal drugs were retrieved from the vehicle.
Petitioners were charged in a four-count indictment with violating various federal drug laws, including 21 U. S. C. §§ 844(a) and 860(a). At a pretrial suppression hearing, they challenged the legality of the stop and the resulting seizure of the drugs. They argued that the stop had not been justi ﬁed by probable cause to believe, or even reasonable suspi cion, that petitioners were engaged in illegal drug-dealing activity; and that Ofﬁcer Soto’s asserted ground for ap proaching the vehicle—to give the driver a warning concern ing trafﬁc violations—was pretextual. The District Court denied the suppression motion, concluding that “the facts of the stop were not controverted,” and “[t]here was nothing to really demonstrate that the actions of the ofﬁcers were contrary to a normal trafﬁc stop.” App. 5.
Petitioners were convicted of the counts at issue here. The Court of Appeals afﬁrmed the convictions, holding with respect to the suppression issue that, “regardless of whether a police ofﬁcer subjectively believes that the occupants of an automobile may be engaging in some other illegal behavior, a trafﬁc stop is permissible as long as a reasonable ofﬁcer in the same circumstances could have stopped the car for the suspected trafﬁc violation.” 53 F. 3d 371, 374–375 (CADC 1995). We granted certiorari. 516 U. S. 1036 (1996).
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the peo ple to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a “seizure” of “persons” within the
Opinion of the Court
meaning of this provision. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440
U. S. 648, 653 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428
U. S. 543, 556 (1976); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422
U. S. 873, 878 (1975). An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be “unreasonable” under the circumstances. As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a trafﬁc violation has occurred. See Prouse, supra, at 659; Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 109 (1977)
Petitioners accept that Ofﬁcer Soto had probable cause to believe that various provisions of the District of Columbia trafﬁc code had been violated. See 18 D. C. Mun. Regs. §§ 2213.4 (1995) (“An operator shall . . . give full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle”); 2204.3 (“No person shall turn any vehicle . . . without giving an appropriate sig nal”); 2200.3 (“No person shall drive a vehicle . . . at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the condi tions”). They argue, however, that “in the unique context of civil trafﬁc regulations” probable cause is not enough. Since, they contend, the use of automobiles is so heavily and minutely regulated that total compliance with trafﬁc and safety rules is nearly impossible, a police ofﬁcer will almost invariably be able to catch any given motorist in a technical violation. This creates the temptation to use trafﬁc stops as a means of investigating other law violations, as to which no probable cause or even articulable suspicion exists. Peti tioners, who are both black, further contend that police ofﬁ cers might decide which motorists to stop based on decidedly impermissible factors, such as the race of the car’s occupants. To avoid this danger, they say, the Fourth Amendment test for trafﬁc stops should be, not the normal one (applied by the Court of Appeals) of whether probable cause existed to justify the stop; but rather, whether a police ofﬁcer, acting reasonably, would have made the stop for the reason given.
Opinion of the Court
Petitioners contend that the standard they propose is con sistent with our past cases’ disapproval of police attempts to use valid bases of action against citizens as pretexts for pur suing other investigatory agendas. We are reminded that in Florida v. Wells, 495 U. S. 1, 4 (1990), we stated that “an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummag ing in order to discover incriminating evidence”; that in Col orado v. Bertine, 479 U. S. 367, 372 (1987), in approving an inventory search, we apparently thought it signiﬁcant that there had been “no showing that the police, who were follow ing standardized procedures, acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation”; and that in New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 716–717, n. 27 (1987), we observed, in upholding the constitutionality of a warrantless administra tive inspection,2 that the search did not appear to be “a ‘pre text’ for obtaining evidence of . . . violation of . . . penal laws.” But only an undiscerning reader would regard these cases as endorsing the principle that ulterior motives can invalidate police conduct that is justiﬁable on the basis of probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred. In each case we were addressing the validity of a search conducted in the absence of probable cause. Our quoted statements simply explain that the exemption from the need for probable cause (and warrant), which is accorded to searches made for the purpose of inventory or administrative
1 An inventory search is the search of property lawfully seized and de tained, in order to ensure that it is harmless, to secure valuable items (such as might be kept in a towed car), and to protect against false claims of loss or damage. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364, 369 (1976).
2 An administrative inspection is the inspection of business premises conducted by authorities responsible for enforcing a pervasive regulatory scheme—for example, unannounced inspection of a mine for compliance with health and safety standards. See Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U. S. 594, 599–605 (1981).
Opinion of the Court
regulation, is not accorded to searches that are not made for those purposes. See Bertine, supra, at 371–372; Burger, supra, at 702–703.
Petitioners also rely upon Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U. S. 1 (1980) (per curiam), a case which, like this one, involved a trafﬁc stop as the prelude to a plain-view sighting and arrest on charges wholly unrelated to the basis for the stop. Peti tioners point to our statement that “[t]here was no evidence whatsoever that the ofﬁcer’s presence to issue a trafﬁc cita tion was a pretext to conﬁrm any other previous suspicion about the occupants” of the car. Id., at 4, n. 4. That dictum at most demonstrates that the Court in Bannister found no need to inquire into the question now under discussion; not that it was certain of the answer. And it may demonstrate even less than that: If by “pretext” the Court meant that the ofﬁcer really had not seen the car speeding, the statement would mean only that there was no reason to doubt probable cause for the trafﬁc stop.
It would, moreover, be anomalous, to say the least, to treat a statement in a footnote in the per curiam Bannister opin ion as indicating a reversal of our prior law. Petitioners’ difﬁculty is not simply a lack of afﬁrmative support for their position. Not only have we never held, outside the context of inventory search or administrative inspection (discussed above), that an ofﬁcer’s motive invalidates objectively justi ﬁable behavior under the Fourth Amendment; but we have repeatedly held and asserted the contrary. In United States
v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U. S. 579, 584, n. 3 (1983), we held that an otherwise valid warrantless boarding of a vessel by customs ofﬁcials was not rendered invalid “because the customs ofﬁcers were accompanied by a Louisiana state po liceman, and were following an informant’s tip that a vessel in the ship channel was thought to be carrying marihuana.” We ﬂatly dismissed the idea that an ulterior motive might serve to strip the agents of their legal justiﬁcation. In United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973), we held that
Cite as: 517 U. S. 806 (1996) 813
Opinion of the Court
a trafﬁc-violation arrest (of the sort here) would not be ren dered invalid by the fact that it was “a mere pretext for a narcotics search,” id., at 221, n. 1; and that a lawful post-arrest search of the person would not be rendered invalid by the fact that it was not motivated by the ofﬁcer-safety concern that justiﬁes such searches, see id., at 236. See also Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U. S. 260, 266 (1973). And in Scott v. United States, 436 U. S. 128, 138 (1978), in reject ing the contention that wiretap evidence was subject to ex clusion because the agents conducting the tap had failed to make any effort to comply with the statutory requirement that unauthorized acquisitions be minimized, we said that “[s]ubjective intent alone . . . does not make otherwise lawful conduct illegal or unconstitutional.” We described Robin son as having established that “the fact that the ofﬁcer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justiﬁcation for the ofﬁcer’s action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action.” 436
U. S., at 136, 138.
We think these cases foreclose any argument that the constitutional reasonableness of trafﬁc stops depends on the actual motivations of the individual ofﬁcers involved. We of course agree with petitioners that the Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race. But the constitutional basis for objecting to intentionally discriminatory application of laws is the Equal Protection Clause, not the Fourth Amendment. Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.
Recognizing that we have been unwilling to entertain Fourth Amendment challenges based on the actual motiva tions of individual ofﬁcers, petitioners disavow any intention to make the individual ofﬁcer’s subjective good faith the touchstone of “reasonableness.” They insist that the stand
Opinion of the Court
ard they have put forward—whether the ofﬁcer’s conduct deviated materially from usual police practices, so that a rea sonable ofﬁcer in the same circumstances would not have made the stop for the reasons given—is an “objective” one.
But although framed in empirical terms, this approach is plainly and indisputably driven by subjective considerations. Its whole purpose is to prevent the police from doing under the guise of enforcing the trafﬁc code what they would like to do for different reasons. Petitioners’ proposed standard may not use the word “pretext,” but it is designed to combat nothing other than the perceived “danger” of the pretextual stop, albeit only indirectly and over the run of cases. In stead of asking whether the individual ofﬁcer had the proper state of mind, the petitioners would have us ask, in effect, whether (based on general police practices) it is plausible to believe that the ofﬁcer had the proper state of mind.
Why one would frame a test designed to combat pretext in such fashion that the court cannot take into account actual and admitted pretext is a curiosity that can only be explained by the fact that our cases have foreclosed the more sensible option. If those cases were based only upon the evidentiary difﬁculty of establishing subjective intent, petitioners’ at tempt to root out subjective vices through objective means might make sense. But they were not based only upon that, or indeed even principally upon that. Their principal basis—which applies equally to attempts to reach subjective intent through ostensibly objective means—is simply that the Fourth Amendment’s concern with “reasonableness” allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent. See, e. g., Robinson, supra, at 236 (“Since it is the fact of custodial arrest which gives rise to the authority to search, it is of no moment that [the ofﬁcer] did not indicate any subjective fear of the [arrestee] or that he did not himself suspect that [the arrestee] was armed”) (footnotes omitted); Gustafson, supra, at 266 (same). But even if our concern had been only an evidentiary one,
Opinion of the Court
petitioners’ proposal would by no means assuage it. Indeed, it seems to us somewhat easier to ﬁgure out the intent of an individual ofﬁcer than to plumb the collective consciousness of law enforcement in order to determine whether a “reason able ofﬁcer” would have been moved to act upon the trafﬁc violation. While police manuals and standard procedures may sometimes provide objective assistance, ordinarily one would be reduced to speculating about the hypothetical re action of a hypothetical constable—an exercise that might be called virtual subjectivity.
Moreover, police enforcement practices, even if they could be practicably assessed by a judge, vary from place to place and from time to time. We cannot accept that the search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment are so variable, cf. Gustafson, supra, at 265; United States v. Ca ceres, 440 U. S. 741, 755–756 (1979), and can be made to turn upon such trivialities. The difﬁculty is illustrated by peti tioners’ arguments in this case. Their claim that a reason able ofﬁcer would not have made this stop is based largely on District of Columbia police regulations which permit plainclothes ofﬁcers in unmarked vehicles to enforce trafﬁc laws “only in the case of a violation that is so grave as to pose an immediate threat to the safety of others.” Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D. C., General Order 303.1, pt. 1, Objectives and Policies (A)(2)(4) (Apr. 30, 1992), re printed as Addendum to Brief for Petitioners. This basis of invalidation would not apply in jurisdictions that had a different practice. And it would not have applied even in the District of Columbia, if Ofﬁcer Soto had been wearing a uniform or patrolling in a marked police cruiser.
Petitioners argue that our cases support insistence upon police adherence to standard practices as an objective means of rooting out pretext. They cite no holding to that effect, and dicta in only two cases. In Abel v. United States, 362
U. S. 217 (1960), the petitioner had been arrested by the Im migration and Naturalization Service (INS), on the basis of
Opinion of the Court
an administrative warrant that, he claimed, had been issued on pretextual grounds in order to enable the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search his room after his arrest. We regarded this as an allegation of “serious misconduct,” but rejected Abel’s claims on the ground that “[a] ﬁnding of bad faith is...not open to us on th[e] record” in light of the ﬁndings below, including the ﬁnding that “ ‘the proceedings taken by the [INS] differed in no respect from what would have been done in the case of an individual concerning whom [there was no pending FBI investigation],’ ” id., at 226–227. But it is a long leap from the proposition that following regu lar procedures is some evidence of lack of pretext to the proposition that failure to follow regular procedures proves (or is an operational substitute for) pretext. Abel, more over, did not involve the assertion that pretext could invali date a search or seizure for which there was probable cause—and even what it said about pretext in other contexts is plainly inconsistent with the views we later stated in Rob inson, Gustafson, Scott, and Villamonte-Marquez. In the other case claimed to contain supportive dicta, United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973), in approving a search inci dent to an arrest for driving without a license, we noted that the arrest was “not a departure from established police de partment practice.” Id., at 221, n. 1. That was followed, however, by the statement that “[w]e leave for another day questions which would arise on facts different from these.” Ibid. This is not even a dictum that purports to provide an answer, but merely one that leaves the question open.
In what would appear to be an elaboration on the “reason able ofﬁcer” test, petitioners argue that the balancing inher ent in any Fourth Amendment inquiry requires us to weigh the governmental and individual interests implicated in a trafﬁc stop such as we have here. That balancing, petition ers claim, does not support investigation of minor trafﬁc in
Opinion of the Court
fractions by plainclothes police in unmarked vehicles; such investigation only minimally advances the government’s in terest in trafﬁc safety, and may indeed retard it by producing motorist confusion and alarm—a view said to be supported by the Metropolitan Police Department’s own regulations generally prohibiting this practice. And as for the Fourth Amendment interests of the individuals concerned, petition ers point out that our cases acknowledge that even ordinary trafﬁc stops entail “a possibly unsettling show of authority”; that they at best “interfere with freedom of movement, are inconvenient, and consume time” and at worst “may create substantial anxiety,” Prouse, 440 U. S., at 657. That anxiety is likely to be even more pronounced when the stop is con ducted by plainclothes ofﬁcers in unmarked cars.
It is of course true that in principle every Fourth Amend ment case, since it turns upon a “reasonableness” determina tion, involves a balancing of all relevant factors. With rare exceptions not applicable here, however, the result of that balancing is not in doubt where the search or seizure is based upon probable cause. That is why petitioners must rely upon cases like Prouse to provide examples of actual “bal ancing” analysis. There, the police action in question was a random trafﬁc stop for the purpose of checking a motorist’s license and vehicle registration, a practice that—like the practices at issue in the inventory search and administrative inspection cases upon which petitioners rely in making their “pretext” claim—involves police intrusion without the proba ble cause that is its traditional justiﬁcation. Our opinion in Prouse expressly distinguished the case from a stop based on precisely what is at issue here: “probable cause to believe that a driver is violating any one of the multitude of appli cable trafﬁc and equipment regulations.” Id., at 661. It noted approvingly that “[t]he foremost method of enforcing trafﬁc and vehicle safety regulations . . . is acting upon ob served violations,” id., at 659, which afford the “ ‘quantum of individualized suspicion’ ” necessary to ensure that police
Opinion of the Court
discretion is sufﬁciently constrained, id., at 654–655 (quoting United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S., at 560). What is true of Prouse is also true of other cases that engaged in detailed “balancing” to decide the constitutionality of auto mobile stops, such as Martinez-Fuerte, which upheld check point stops, see 428 U. S., at 556–562, and Brignoni-Ponce, which disallowed so-called “roving patrol” stops, see 422 U. S., at 882–884: The detailed “balancing” analysis was necessary because they involved seizures without probable cause.
Where probable cause has existed, the only cases in which we have found it necessary actually to perform the “balanc ing” analysis involved searches or seizures conducted in an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to an individual’s privacy or even physical interests—such as, for example, sei zure by means of deadly force, see Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985), unannounced entry into a home, see Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927 (1995), entry into a home without a warrant, see Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U. S. 740 (1984), or physical penetration of the body, see Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753 (1985). The making of a trafﬁc stop out of uniform does not remotely qualify as such an extreme practice, and so is governed by the usual rule that probable cause to be lieve the law has been broken “outbalances” private interest in avoiding police contact.
Petitioners urge as an extraordinary factor in this case that the “multitude of applicable trafﬁc and equipment regu lations” is so large and so difﬁcult to obey perfectly that vir tually everyone is guilty of violation, permitting the police to single out almost whomever they wish for a stop. But we are aware of no principle that would allow us to decide at what point a code of law becomes so expansive and so commonly violated that infraction itself can no longer be the ordinary measure of the lawfulness of enforcement. And even if we could identify such exorbitant codes, we do not know by what standard (or what right) we would decide, as
Opinion of the Court
petitioners would have us do, which particular provisions are sufﬁciently important to merit enforcement.
For the run-of-the-mine case, which this surely is, we think there is no realistic alternative to the traditional common-law rule that probable cause justiﬁes a search and seizure.
*** Here the District Court found that the ofﬁcers had proba ble cause to believe that petitioners had violated the trafﬁc code. That rendered the stop reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the evidence thereby discovered admissible, and the upholding of the convictions by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit correct.The judgment is Afﬁrmed.