267 U.S. 132 (1925)
On December 15, 1921, federal prohibition agents stopped an automobile driven by John Kiro with George Carroll as passenger on the highway between Detroit and Grand Rapids, Michigan, approximately sixteen miles from Grand Rapids.1 The agents searched the vehicle and discovered sixty-nine quarts of whiskey concealed in the back seat.2 Carroll and Kiro were subsequently indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan for transporting intoxicating liquor in violation of the National Prohibition Act.3
Several months earlier, on September 29, 1921, the same agents had met Carroll and Kiro in a Grand Rapids apartment while posing as buyers and negotiated the purchase of three cases of whiskey, which the defendants agreed to deliver but never did.4 On October 6, 1921, the agents observed the defendants' automobile on the road heading toward Detroit and attempted to follow it but lost track near East Lansing.5
On December 15, the agents recognized the same automobile and occupants traveling from the direction of Detroit toward Grand Rapids.6 They stopped the vehicle, ordered the defendants out, and upon searching found the liquor hidden in the lazyback of the seat.7 The defendants were arrested, and the liquor and automobile were seized.
The defendants moved to suppress the liquor as evidence, arguing it was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but the district court overruled the motion and admitted the evidence at trial.8 Following their conviction, the Supreme Court granted review to address the constitutionality of the warrantless search and seizure.9
Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of an automobile on a public highway when officers have probable cause to believe it contains contraband liquor being transported in violation of law?10
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not forbid the warrantless search of an automobile on a public highway when the officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband liquor being transported illegally. This is because the mobility of the automobile makes obtaining a warrant impracticable.11
No. The officers stopped the automobile driven by John Kiro with George Carroll as passenger on December 15, 1921, on the highway sixteen miles from Grand Rapids.12 They had previously negotiated a whiskey purchase with the defendants on September 29, 1921, observed the same vehicle heading toward Detroit on October 6, 1921, and recognized the vehicle and occupants traveling from Detroit on December 15, 1921.13 Upon searching they discovered sixty-nine quarts of whiskey concealed in the lazyback of the seat.14 These specific facts supplied probable cause that the automobile was transporting contraband, rendering the warrantless search and seizure reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.15
The warrantless search and seizure of the automobile did not violate the Fourth Amendment.16
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Sutherland
Justice McReynolds argued that the officers possessed no personal knowledge that the automobile contained liquor.17 They acted solely on suspicion and rumor after a failed negotiation two and one half months earlier.18 The common law forbids arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in the officer's presence.19
The Volstead Act supplies no authority for a warrantless arrest or search on mere suspicion.20 Therefore both the arrest and the subsequent seizure were unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.21
Whether officers who had previously negotiated a liquor purchase with the defendants and observed their vehicle on the highway had probable cause to stop and search the automobile without a warrant?22
Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge are sufficient. They must warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing that intoxicating liquor is being transported in the automobile.23
Yes. The agents had negotiated the purchase of three cases of whiskey with Carroll and Kiro on September 29, 1921, observed the defendants' automobile on the road toward Detroit on October 6, 1921, and recognized the identical vehicle and occupants coming from Detroit on December 15, 1921.24 These concrete prior contacts and observations supplied the officers with facts sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing the automobile carried contraband liquor, establishing probable cause for the stop and search.25
The officers possessed probable cause to stop and search the automobile without a warrant.26
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Sutherland
Justice McReynolds maintained that the only circumstance capable of creating suspicion was the September 29 negotiation that produced no delivery.27 Every subsequent act by the defendants was consistent with complete innocence.28 The officers therefore lacked any reasonable belief that a misdemeanor was being committed.29
They had no probable cause for the stop or search under the Fourth Amendment.30 The arrest came two and one half months after the negotiation, and the officers had no personal knowledge that the automobile contained liquor at the time they stopped it on the highway.31
Whether the common-law rules governing warrantless arrests for misdemeanors limit the authority to search a vehicle for contraband subject to seizure and forfeiture under the National Prohibition Act?32
The validity of a seizure of contraband liquor from a vehicle depends on the seizing officer's probable cause. It does not turn on whether the officer could lawfully arrest the driver without a warrant under common-law misdemeanor rules.33
No. Section 26 of the National Prohibition Act authorizes seizure of the vehicle and liquor when an officer discovers a person transporting liquor in violation of law.34 The seizure here occurred before any arrest.35 The officers' probable cause arose from their prior knowledge of the defendants' activities and the December 15 observation of the vehicle, independent of any requirement that the misdemeanor be committed in their presence.36 The common-law arrest rule therefore does not limit the statutory authority to seize the contraband and the automobile.37
Common-law misdemeanor arrest rules do not limit the authority to search and seize a vehicle containing contraband under the National Prohibition Act.38
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Sutherland
Justice McReynolds contended that the Volstead Act contains no provision authorizing arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor not committed in the officer's presence.39 The seizure followed an unlawful arrest and therefore itself became unlawful.40 The common-law restriction on misdemeanor arrests must be respected because Congress had not clearly abrogated it in the statute.41
The Volstead Act does not, in terms, authorize arrest or seizure upon mere suspicion, and the facts known when the arrest occurred were wholly insufficient to engender reasonable belief that plaintiffs in error were committing a misdemeanor.42