440 U.S. 648 (1979)
On November 30, 1976, at 7:20 p.m., a New Castle County, Delaware, patrolman in a police cruiser stopped the automobile occupied by respondent.1
The patrolman smelled marihuana smoke while walking toward the stopped vehicle and seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor.2 Respondent was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance.3
At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana, the patrolman testified that prior to the stop he had observed neither traffic nor equipment violations nor any suspicious activity.4 The patrolman made the stop only to check the driver's license and registration and was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks promulgated by his department or the State Attorney General.5 He explained that he saw the car in the area and was not answering any complaints, so he decided to pull them off.6 The vehicle was registered to respondent, though the arresting officer testified that respondent was not the driver and was seated in the back.7
The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious.8 The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed in 1978, noting that the issue of systematic roadblock-type stops of vehicles was not before the court.9 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the Delaware decision and contrary determinations in six other jurisdictions regarding the permissibility of random automobile stops for license and registration checks.10
Whether the Delaware Supreme Court's judgment rested on an independent and adequate state ground so that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction?11
If the state court felt compelled by federal constitutional considerations to construe its own law in the manner it did, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction even if the state constitution is mentioned.12
No. The Delaware Supreme Court analyzed decisions interpreting the Federal Constitution.13 It concluded that the Fourth Amendment foreclosed spot checks of automobiles.14 It then summarily held that the State Constitution was also infringed.15 This approach is consistent with previous opinions of the Delaware Supreme Court.16
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction.17
Whether it is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to stop an automobile being driven on a public highway for the purpose of checking the driving license of the operator and the registration of the car where there is neither probable cause to believe nor reasonable suspicion that the car is being driven contrary to the laws governing the operation of motor vehicles or that either the car or any of its occupants is subject to seizure or detention in connection with the violation of any other applicable law?18
The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are implicated because stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a seizure.19 The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.20 The reasonableness standard usually requires that the facts upon which an intrusion is based be capable of measurement against an objective standard.21
Yes. The stop in this case was made without any standards, guidelines, or procedures and without observing any violations or suspicious activity.22 The officer acted on a hunch by deciding to pull the car over because he saw it in the area and was not answering any complaints.23 Although the State has a vital interest in ensuring highway safety and that only qualified drivers operate fit vehicles, the discretionary spot check is not a sufficiently productive mechanism to justify the intrusion upon Fourth Amendment interests.24
Alternative mechanisms such as acting upon observed violations are available.25 The contribution to highway safety made by discretionary stops selected from among drivers generally will therefore be marginal at best.26 The marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials.27
The stop was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.28
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Blackmun concurs with the understanding that the decision protects from its reach other less intrusive spot checks that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion.29 The roadblock stop for all traffic is given as an example.30 He assumes that the Court's reservation also includes other not purely random stops such as every 10th car to pass a given point that equate with but are less intrusive than a 100% roadblock stop.31
He would not regard the present case as a precedent that throws any constitutional shadow upon the necessarily somewhat individualized and perhaps largely random examinations by game wardens in the performance of their duties.32 In a situation of that type the Court's balancing process and the value factors under consideration would be quite different.33
Justice Rehnquist dissents and argues that the Court elevates the adage misery loves company to a novel role in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.34 The Court allows roadblock stops but not random stops of fewer than all motorists.35 He contends that the State's interest in traffic safety outweighs the intrusion on motorists.36
The Court reverses the presumption of constitutionality accorded acts of the States.37 The burden is not upon the State to demonstrate that its procedures are consistent with the Fourth Amendment but upon respondent to demonstrate that they are not.38 On this record respondent has failed to make such a demonstration.39
Neither the Court's opinion nor the opinion of the Supreme Court of Delaware suggests that the random stop made in this case was carried out in a manner inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause.40