United States v. Morrison

Background

A driver was stopped at a permanent Border Patrol checkpoint near Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. An agent smelled marijuana, searched the car, and found a large quantity. The driver was charged with possessing marijuana with intent to distribute under federal law, waived a jury, and a judge found him guilty. After later cases raised questions about checkpoint searches, the District Court suppressed the marijuana and the Government appealed under the Criminal Appeals Act.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the double jeopardy clause prevents the Government from appealing a suppression order after a judge has already found the defendant guilty. The Court relied on earlier decisions holding that a judge’s general finding of guilt in a bench trial is equivalent to a jury verdict for double jeopardy purposes. Because a successful appeal would restore the judge’s guilty finding rather than require a new trial on factual issues, double jeopardy does not bar the Government’s appeal. The Court therefore granted review, vacated the appeals court judgment that dismissed the Government’s appeal, and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this reasoning.

Real world impact

The ruling lets federal prosecutors appeal orders that throw out evidence even when a judge has already found the defendant guilty in a bench trial. It affects prosecutions involving checkpoint searches and other suppression disputes. This decision resolves a procedural question; it does not itself decide whether the search was lawful on the merits, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.