470 U.S. 675 (1985)
On the morning of June 9, 1981, DEA Agent Cooke was patrolling Interstate 95 in Florence County, South Carolina, in an unmarked vehicle when he observed a blue Pontiac and a white camper traveling northbound in tandem.1 The Pontiac was driven by respondent Savage and the camper by respondent Sharpe. After following the vehicles for approximately 20 miles, Cooke concluded they were transporting drugs and radioed for assistance.2 Agent McPherson joined the surveillance and continued following the vehicles for another 15 or 20 miles.3
Cooke then pulled alongside the camper and motioned for Sharpe to stop. Sharpe complied and produced a driver's license but appeared extremely nervous.4 McPherson approached the passenger side, smelled marijuana from the rear of the camper, and radioed for a marked vehicle to assist.5 Approximately 15 minutes after the initial stop, a South Carolina Highway Patrolman arrived. The Pontiac turned around and headed back. Cooke radioed for the marked vehicle to stop it about one-half mile from the camper.6
McPherson determined there was probable cause and took Sharpe into custody. Cooke returned to the camper and arrested Sharpe. A search of the Pontiac revealed 1,000 pounds of marijuana in the trunk, and a search of the camper revealed 2,000 pounds of marijuana in the back.7 Sharpe and Savage were charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).8
The District Court denied respondents' motion to suppress the evidence and they were convicted after a jury trial.9 The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. The court held that the 15-minute detention of Sharpe was unreasonable under Terry v. Ohio because the investigation should have been completed more quickly and because the detention resulted from a lack of diligence by the agents.10
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.11
Whether the 15-minute detention of respondent Sharpe while DEA agents waited for a marked police vehicle converted the Terry stop into a de facto arrest requiring probable cause?12
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures. In Terry v. Ohio, the Court held that police may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot. In evaluating whether a detention is too long to be justified as an investigative stop, it is appropriate to consider whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly. The length of the detention alone does not convert a Terry stop into a de facto arrest.13
No. Applying the rule to the established facts by name, the agents had an objective, articulable, and reasonable suspicion that Sharpe and Savage were engaged in drug trafficking based on the tandem driving for 20 miles, the nervous behavior of Sharpe, and the smell of marijuana from the camper. The 15-minute detention was not unnecessarily prolonged. The agents acted diligently and in a manner that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly. The delay in stopping the Pontiac was attributable to the fact that the agents had to split up to continue their investigation.14
The 15-minute detention of Sharpe did not violate the Fourth Amendment.15
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Blackmun concurred in the Court's opinion and judgment. He wrote separately to emphasize that the length of a detention is only one factor to be considered in determining whether a Terry stop has become a de facto arrest.16 Other factors include the degree of intrusion, the location of the stop, and the extent to which the suspect's liberty is restrained.
In this case, the 15-minute detention did not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.17
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the investigation should have been completed within the time it took Agent McPherson to walk back to the camper?18
The purpose of a Terry stop is to allow the officer to pursue a limited investigation to confirm or dispel his suspicion. The fact that the investigation could have been completed more quickly does not mean that the detention was unreasonable.19
Yes. The Court of Appeals' conclusion that the investigation should have been completed within the time it took McPherson to walk back to the camper is inconsistent with the purpose of allowing the police to conduct a limited investigation of suspected criminal activity. The agents had an objective, articulable, and reasonable suspicion that Sharpe and Savage were engaged in drug trafficking. The 15-minute detention was not unnecessarily prolonged.20
The Court of Appeals erred in its conclusion.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Marshall concurred in the judgment of the Court. He agreed that the 15-minute detention of respondent Sharpe did not violate the Fourth Amendment.22 He wrote separately to express his view that the Court should adopt a bright-line rule that a detention of 20 minutes or less is presumptively reasonable under Terry v. Ohio.
Such a rule would provide clear guidance to law enforcement officers and would eliminate the need for case-by-case adjudication of the reasonableness of the length of a detention.23
Whether the length of the detention was unreasonable because it resulted from a lack of diligence by the agents?24
In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, we consider it appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant. A court making this assessment should take care to consider whether the police are acting in a swiftly developing situation, and in such cases the court should not indulge in unrealistic second-guessing.25
No. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the length of the detention was unreasonable because it was the result of a lack of diligence by the agents. The record indicates that the agents acted with diligence in pursuing their investigation. Agent Cooke followed the vehicles for approximately 20 miles before deciding to stop them. After the stop, Agent McPherson quickly determined that there was probable cause to arrest Sharpe.
The delay in stopping the Pontiac was attributable to the fact that the agents had to split up to continue their investigation.26
The length of the detention was not unreasonable due to lack of diligence.27
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brennan
Justice Stevens dissented. He argued that the 15-minute detention of respondent Sharpe constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.28 The agents had no valid reason for detaining Sharpe for such a long period of time while they waited for a marked vehicle to arrive.
The investigation could have been completed within a much shorter period of time.29 The length of the detention was the result of a lack of diligence by the agents. He would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.30