Virginia v. Moore
Headline: Court allows police to arrest a driver on probable cause even when state law required a citation, upholding searches incident to such arrests and reversing the state court’s suppression ruling.
Holding: The police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they made an arrest that was based on probable cause but prohibited by state law, or when they performed a search incident to the arrest.
- Allows police to arrest based on probable cause despite state citation rules.
- Permits searches incident to arrests even when state law prefers citations.
- Limits state law’s ability to force suppression of evidence from such arrests.
Summary
Background
Police in Portsmouth stopped a car driven by David Lee Moore after learning he was driving with a suspended license. Virginia law generally required officers to issue a citation for that misdemeanor instead of making an arrest unless certain exceptions applied. The officers arrested Moore, searched him, and found crack cocaine; his conviction was later reversed by Virginia’s high court as inconsistent with state rules.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court examined whether breaking a state arrest rule automatically makes an arrest unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The Court found no clear historical evidence that the Constitution incorporates state arrest statutes. Where history is inconclusive, it applied the usual balancing test and relied on precedent saying probable cause to believe a crime occurred in an officer’s presence makes an arrest reasonable. The Court held that a state’s decision to protect privacy more strictly than the Constitution does not turn a probable-cause arrest into an unreasonable seizure.
Real world impact
The ruling means officers who have probable cause may arrest and search a suspect even if state law would have required a citation, and evidence from such searches need not be excluded under the Fourth Amendment. States remain free to discipline officers or limit arrests by state law, but those state limits do not automatically create federal constitutional remedies like evidence suppression.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Ginsburg agreed with the outcome but wrote separately, saying she saw more historical support for the opposite view and emphasizing precedents that weigh differently on suppression questions.
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?