553 U.S. 164 (2008)
On February 20, 2008, two city of Portsmouth police officers stopped a car driven by David Lee Moore.1 They had heard over the police radio that a person known as “Chubs” was driving with a suspended license, and one of the officers knew Moore by that nickname.2 The officers determined that Moore’s license was in fact suspended, and arrested him for the misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license.3 The officers subsequently searched Moore and found that he was carrying 16 grams of crack cocaine and $516 in cash.4
Under state law, the officers should have issued Moore a summons instead of arresting him.5 Driving on a suspended license, like some other misdemeanors, is not an arrestable offense except as to those who fail or refuse to discontinue the violation, and those whom the officer reasonably believes to be likely to disregard a summons, or likely to harm themselves or others.6 The intermediate appellate court found none of these circumstances applicable, and Virginia did not appeal that determination.7
Moore was charged with possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it in violation of Virginia law.8 He filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence from the arrest search.9 The trial court denied the motion, and after a bench trial found Moore guilty of the drug charge and sentenced him to a 5-year prison term, with one year and six months of the sentence suspended.10
The conviction was reversed by a panel of Virginia’s intermediate court on Fourth Amendment grounds. It was reinstated by the intermediate court sitting en banc. It was finally reversed again by the Virginia Supreme Court.11 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.12
Whether a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment by making an arrest based on probable cause but prohibited by state law?13
The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless arrests for crimes committed in the presence of an arresting officer when probable cause exists, and state restrictions on arrest authority do not alter the Fourth Amendment's protections.14
No. The officers stopped the car driven by David Lee Moore after receiving information over the police radio that a person known as Chubs was driving with a suspended license and confirming Moore's identity and license status.15 Although Virginia law required issuance of a summons rather than arrest because none of the statutory exceptions for arrest applied, the existence of probable cause rendered the arrest constitutionally reasonable.16 State law limitations reflect a policy choice to value privacy more highly than the Fourth Amendment minimum but do not render the arrest unreasonable under the federal Constitution.17
A police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by making an arrest based on probable cause but prohibited by state law.18
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Ginsburg found in the historical record more support for Moore’s position than the Court does.19 She noted that under the common law at the end of the 19th century, arrests for minor misdemeanors typically depended on statutory authorization.20 Justice Ginsburg also viewed the decision in United States v. Di Re as pinned to the Fourth Amendment rather than supervisory power.21
Nevertheless, she joined the judgment because Virginia attaches only limited consequences, such as officer discipline and tort suits, to violations of its summons-only instruction.22 The Fourth Amendment does not require states to choose between providing extra protection against arrest and attaching federal remedies like the exclusionary rule.23
Whether evidence obtained from a search incident to an arrest that violated state law must be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment?24
When an arrest is supported by probable cause and therefore lawful under the Fourth Amendment, officers may conduct a search incident to that arrest to ensure safety and safeguard evidence, and evidence from such a search need not be suppressed even if the arrest violated state law.25
No. The officers arrested Moore based on probable cause to believe he committed the misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license in their presence, making the arrest constitutionally permissible.26 The subsequent search of Moore that uncovered 16 grams of crack cocaine and $516 in cash was justified as incident to that lawful arrest to protect officer safety and preserve evidence.27 Because the arrest itself satisfied the Fourth Amendment, the state-law violation in choosing arrest over summons provides no basis for suppression of the evidence under federal constitutional law.28
Evidence obtained from a search incident to an arrest that violated state law need not be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment.29