463 U.S. 1032 (1983)
In a rural area of Michigan one evening shortly after midnight, Deputies Howell and Lewis observed a car traveling erratically and at excessive speed.1 The officers observed the car turning down a side road, where it swerved off into a shallow ditch.2 The officers stopped to investigate. Long, the only occupant of the automobile, met the deputies at the rear of the car, which was protruding from the ditch onto the road.3 The door on the driver's side of the vehicle was left open.4
Deputy Howell requested Long to produce his operator's license, but he did not respond. After the request was repeated, Long produced his license.5 Long again failed to respond when Howell requested him to produce the vehicle registration. After another repeated request, Long, who Howell thought appeared to be under the influence of something, turned from the officers and began walking toward the open door of the vehicle.6 The officers followed Long and both observed a large hunting knife on the floorboard of the driver's side of the car.7 The officers then stopped Long's progress and subjected him to a Terry protective patdown, which revealed no weapons.8
Long and Deputy Lewis then stood by the rear of the vehicle while Deputy Howell shined his flashlight into the interior of the vehicle, but did not actually enter it.9 The purpose of Howell's action was to search for other weapons.10 The officer noticed that something was protruding from under the armrest on the front seat. He knelt in the vehicle and lifted the armrest.11 He saw an open pouch on the front seat, and upon flashing his light on the pouch, determined that it contained what appeared to be marihuana.12 After Deputy Howell showed the pouch and its contents to Deputy Lewis, Long was arrested for possession of marihuana.13 A further search of the interior of the vehicle, including the glovebox, revealed neither more contraband nor the vehicle registration.14 The officers decided to impound the vehicle. Deputy Howell opened the trunk, which did not have a lock, and discovered inside it approximately 75 pounds of marihuana.15
The Barry County Circuit Court denied Long's motion to suppress the marihuana taken from both the interior of the car and its trunk.16 He was subsequently convicted of possession of marihuana.17 The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Long's conviction, holding that the search of the passenger compartment was valid as a protective search under Terry.18 The Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the sole justification of the Terry search, protection of the police officers and others nearby, cannot justify the search in this case.19 The marihuana found in Long's trunk was considered by the court below to be the fruit of the illegal search of the interior, and was also suppressed.20
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the authority of a police officer to protect himself by conducting a Terry-type search of the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle during the lawful investigatory stop of the occupant of the vehicle.21
Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's decision rests on an adequate and independent state ground that precludes Supreme Court review of the federal question?22
When a state-court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state-law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, this Court has jurisdiction to review the federal issue because the state court believed federal law required the result it reached.23
No. The Michigan Supreme Court referred to the Michigan Constitution in a footnote and at the end of its opinion. It otherwise relied exclusively on federal precedents including Terry v. Ohio. The court did not cite any state cases to support its holding that the search of the passenger compartment was unconstitutional. The opinion is interwoven with federal law and contains no plain statement that the decision rests on independent state grounds.24
The Supreme Court therefore has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 to decide the federal question presented.25
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brennan
Justice Stevens dissented on the ground that the Court should presume adequate state grounds are independent unless the record plainly shows otherwise.26 He argued that respect for state courts and avoidance of advisory opinions require this traditional presumption.27 The Michigan Supreme Court explicitly held the search violated both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution.28
The Court should not review when a state merely provides greater protection to its own citizens than federal law requires.29
Justice Blackmun joined Parts I, III, IV, and V of the Court's opinion.30 He was satisfied that the Court had jurisdiction in this particular case.31 He declined to join Part II of the opinion, which fashioned a new presumption of jurisdiction over cases coming from state courts.32
Although he agreed that uniformity in federal criminal law is desirable, he saw little efficiency and an increased danger of advisory opinions in the new approach.33
Whether the search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle was valid under the principles of Terry v. Ohio?34
Under Terry v. Ohio and subsequent cases, a protective search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle is permissible during a lawful investigatory stop if the officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons. The search must be limited to areas where a weapon may be placed or hidden.35
Yes. Deputies Howell and Lewis observed Long driving erratically at excessive speed late at night in a rural area.36 They saw that he appeared under the influence.37 The officers had to repeat requests for his license and registration.38
They watched him walk toward the open car door after failing to respond promptly.39 They saw a large hunting knife on the floorboard.40 These facts created a reasonable belief that Long posed a danger if permitted to reenter the vehicle.41 The limited search under the armrest that revealed the marijuana pouch was therefore justified.42
The search of the passenger compartment was therefore a valid protective search under Terry, and the marijuana discovered was properly admissible.43
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan dissented on the ground that Terry authorizes only a limited pat-down search of the person for weapons and does not support an area search of a vehicle.44 He argued that the Court's reliance on Chimel and Belton was misplaced because those cases involved searches incident to lawful custodial arrests supported by probable cause.45 The facts showed only intoxication rather than present dangerousness.46
The decision distorts Terry beyond recognition by allowing searches based on reasonable suspicion that properly require probable cause.47
Whether the search of the trunk must be addressed on the merits before remanding the case?48
When the state court whose decision is under review did not pass upon an issue, this Court will decline to address the question and will remand for further proceedings.49
No. The Michigan Supreme Court suppressed the marijuana from the trunk solely as fruit of the illegal interior search and did not address whether the trunk search was a valid inventory search under South Dakota v. Opperman.50 The Barry County Circuit Court and Michigan Court of Appeals had upheld the trunk search as a valid inventory search, but that holding was not reviewed by the Michigan Supreme Court.51
The trunk search issue is therefore remanded to the Michigan Supreme Court for determination in light of the holding that the interior search was valid.52