442 U.S. 753 (1979)
On April 23, 1976, Officer David Isom of the Little Rock Police Department received word from a previously reliable informant that respondent would arrive aboard an American Airlines flight at gate No. 1 of the Little Rock Municipal Airport carrying a green suitcase containing marihuana.1
Acting on the tip, Isom and two other officers placed the airport under surveillance. Respondent arrived as predicted, deposited hand luggage in a waiting taxicab, met David Rambo at the baggage claim area, retrieved the green suitcase, gave it to Rambo, and entered the taxi; Rambo later joined him after placing the suitcase in the trunk.2
The officers pursued the taxi and, with the help of a patrol car, stopped the vehicle several blocks from the airport. At the officers' request the taxi driver opened the trunk, and the officers opened the unlocked green suitcase without consent, discovering 9.3 pounds of marihuana packaged in ten plastic bags.3
Respondent and Rambo were charged with possession of marihuana with intent to deliver. Respondent moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the suitcase. The trial court denied the motion, a jury convicted respondent on February 3, 1977, and he was sentenced to ten years in prison and fined $15,000.4
The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the conviction, ruling that the warrantless search of the suitcase was unlawful. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the application of its decision in United States v. Chadwick to warrantless searches of luggage seized from automobiles.5
Whether, in the absence of exigent circumstances, police are required to obtain a warrant before searching luggage taken from an automobile properly stopped and searched for contraband?6
The warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment applies to personal luggage taken from an automobile to the same degree it applies to such luggage in other locations. Thus, insofar as the police are entitled to search such luggage without a warrant, their actions must be justified under some exception to the warrant requirement other than that applicable to automobiles stopped on the highway.7
Yes. The police had probable cause based on the reliable informant's detailed and accurate tip and lawfully seized the suitcase after stopping the taxi.8 Once the suitcase was in their exclusive control, there was not the slightest danger that the luggage or its contents could have been removed before a valid search warrant could be obtained.9 Luggage is inevitably associated with the expectation of privacy.10
Accordingly, the reasons for not requiring a warrant for the search of an automobile do not apply to searches of personal luggage taken by police from automobiles.11
The police were required to obtain a warrant before searching the luggage taken from the automobile.12
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Stevens
Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justice Stevens, concurred in the judgment but declined to join the Court's opinion.13 He stressed that probable cause to believe the suitcase contained marihuana existed before it was placed in the taxicab, making the holding in Chadwick directly applicable.14 The expectation of privacy in the contents of a trunk or suitcase is not diminished simply because the owner's arrest occurs in a public place.15
Burger observed that the relationship between the automobile and the contraband was purely coincidental, as the luggage being transported was the suspected locus of the contraband rather than the vehicle itself.16 Accordingly, the case does not present an application of the automobile exception.17 He further noted that the Court should refrain from deciding questions not presented by the facts of the case.18
Joined by Justice Rehnquist
Justice Blackmun dissented, joined by Justice Rehnquist.19 He maintained that the automobile exception should allow warrantless searches of luggage inside a vehicle that may be searched without a warrant.20 Such luggage is mobile like the car itself.21
The expectation of privacy in a suitcase found in the car is probably not significantly greater than the expectation of privacy in a locked glove compartment or trunk.22 The majority's approach would create confusion through difficult distinctions among containers.23