United States v. Hensley
Headline: Police may briefly stop people named in another department’s wanted flyer, allowing officers across jurisdictions to detain suspects briefly when the issuing department had reasonable suspicion.
Holding:
- Allows officers to briefly stop people named in another department’s wanted flyer.
- Makes evidence found during such brief stops more likely to be admissible.
- Requires stops be limited and justified by the issuing department’s reasonable suspicion.
Summary
Background
On December 4, 1981, two men robbed a tavern in St. Bernard, Ohio. Six days later a St. Bernard officer interviewed an informant who implicated a man named Thomas Hensley as the getaway driver. The officer wrote a statement and issued a “wanted flyer” asking other local departments to pick up and hold Hensley for questioning and warning he might be armed. The Covington, Kentucky, police received the flyer on December 10 and read it at shift changes. On December 16 Covington officers saw Hensley in a car, tried to confirm whether a warrant existed, and briefly stopped him. Officers saw a gun protruding under the passenger seat, arrested the passenger, found additional handguns, and then arrested Hensley. State charges were dismissed and a federal indictment followed; Hensley moved to suppress the guns, and the Sixth Circuit reversed his conviction.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether officers may stop someone named in another department’s flyer while checking for a warrant. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court held that police may briefly stop a person wanted for a past felony if the issuing department had reasonable, specific, and articulable facts supporting suspicion. Officers who act on a flyer need not personally know the underlying facts so long as their reliance is objectively reasonable and the stop is no more intrusive than the issuing department could have made. The Court found the St. Bernard officers had reasonable suspicion based on the informant’s detailed statement, so the stop and evidence were lawful.
Real world impact
The decision lets officers across jurisdictions make limited stops based on wanted flyers when the issuing agency had reasonable suspicion. It also warns that flyers issued without such suspicion make stops unconstitutional, and that detentions must remain brief and not overly intrusive.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan joined the opinion and emphasized that the stop was very brief, acknowledged the privacy intrusion, and supported the balancing approach for such stops.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?