| Opinion | Syllabus | Dissent |
|---|---|---|
| HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version |
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been pre- pared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
Syllabus
FLORIDA v. JIMENO et al.
certiorari to the supreme court of florida
No.
Having stopped respondent Jimeno's car for a traffic infraction, police offi- cer Trujillo, who had been following the car after overhearing Jimeno arranging what appeared to be a drug transaction, declared that he had reason to believe that Jimeno was carrying narcotics in the car, and asked permission to search it. Jimeno consented, and Trujillo found cocaine inside a folded paper bag on the car's floorboard. Jimeno was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of Florida law, but the state trial court granted his motion to sup- press the cocaine on the ground that his consent to search the car did not carry with it specific consent to open the bag and examine its contents. The Florida District Court of Appeal and Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: A criminal suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from un- reasonable searches is not violated when, after he gives police per mission to search his car, they open a closed container found within the car that might reasonably hold the object of the search. The Amend- ment is satisfied when, under the circumstances, it is objectively rea sonable for the police to believe that the scope of the suspect's consent permitted them to open the particular container. Here, the authoriza- tion to search extended beyond the car's interior surfaces to the bag, since Jimeno did not place any explicit limitation on the scope of the search and was aware that Trujillo would be looking for narcotics in the car, and since a reasonable person may be expected to know that nar- cotics are generally carried in some form of container. There is no basis for adding to the Fourth Amendment's basic test of objective reasonable- ness a requirement that, if police wish to search closed containers within a car, they must separately request permission to search each container. Pp. 2-4.
564 So. 2d 1083, reversed and remanded.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ., joined. Marshall, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined.