| Litigants: | Brinegar v. United States |
| Arguedatea: | October 18 |
| Arguedateb: | 19 |
| Argueyear: | 1948 |
| Decidedate: | June 27 |
| Decideyear: | 1949 |
| Fullname: | Brinegar v. United States |
| Usvol: | 338 |
| Uspage: | 160 |
| Parallelcitations: | 69 S. Ct. 1302; 93 L. Ed. 1879; 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2084 |
| Prior: | 165 F.2d 512 (10th Cir. 1948) (affirmed) |
| Holding: | While the police need not always be factually correct in conducting a warrantless search, such a search must always be reasonable. |
| Majority: | Rutledge |
| Joinmajority: | Vinson, Black, Reed, Douglas, Burton |
| Concurrence: | Burton |
| Dissent: | Jackson |
| Joindissent: | Frankfurter, Murphy |
| Lawsapplied: | U.S. Const. amend. IV |
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case employing the "reasonableness test" in warrantless searches. The Court held that while the police need not always be factually correct in conducting a warrantless search, such a search must always be reasonable.
In Brinegar, the defendant had a reputation for illegally transporting liquor across state lines in violation of 27 U.S.C. 223.[1] [2]
One day when the defendant's car passed an officer, who was parked on the edge of a highway, the officer recognized the defendant and noted that the defendant's vehicle looked "heavily loaded." Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer could see one case of alcohol in the front seat of the car, but the defendant later denied that any liquor was visible. The defendant was arrested for the 27 U.S.C. 223 violation, and the officer seized the alcohol in the car as well as the alcohol he found in the trunk after the arrest. The defendant challenged the constitutionality of his arrest on the grounds that the officer did not have probable cause, and thus the seizure of the alcohol was not pursuant to a valid stop.
The Supreme Court, in finding the arrest to be constitutional, stated that the officer had probable cause to stop the defendant's car.[3] The Court emphasized that "probable cause" was the standard for conducting the arrest, not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" as is required for criminal convictions. The Court stressed that if the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard were used in ordinary arrests, officers rarely could take "effective" action in protecting the public good because the standard would be too high to meet. The Court noted that to require more than probable cause would harm law enforcement, while to allow less than probable cause would "leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers' whim or caprice."[4] Nonetheless, the Court cautioned, probable cause still requires "a reasonable ground for belief of guilt." Thus, the Court announced that it would consider the reasonableness of an officer's belief when it evaluates a warrantless search.
[6] (Jackson, J., dissenting).
Whoever shall import, bring or transport any intoxicating liquor into any State in which all sales ... of intoxicating liquor containing more than 4 per centum of alcohol by volume are prohibited, otherwise than in the course of continuous interstate transportation through such State, or attempt so to do, or assist in so doing, shall ... if all importation, bringing, or transportation or intoxicating liquor into such State is prohibited by the law thereof; be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $ 1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 27 U.S.C. 223 (1936).