Syllabus | Opinion [ Rehnquist ] | Concurrence [ OConnor ] | Concurrence [ Scalia ] | Dissent [ Stevens ] |
---|---|---|---|---|
HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version |
MARCUS THORNTON, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
[May 24, 2004]
Justice OConnor, concurring in part.
I join all but footnote 4 of the Courts opinion. Although the opinion is a logical extension of the holding of New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), I write separately to express my dissatisfaction with the state of the law in this area. As Justice Scalia forcefully argues, post, p. 2-5 (opinion concurring in judgment), lower court decisions seem now to treat the ability to search a vehicle incident to the arrest of a recent occupant as a police entitlement rather than as an exception justified by the twin rationales of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). That erosion is a direct consequence of Beltons shaky foundation. While the approach Justice Scalia proposes appears to be built on firmer ground, I am reluctant to adopt it in the context of a case in which neither the Government nor the petitioner has had a chance to speak to its merit.