526 U.S. 295 (1999)
In the early morning hours of July 23, 1995, a Wyoming Highway Patrol officer stopped an automobile for speeding and driving with a faulty brake light. There were three passengers in the front seat of the car: David Young (the driver), his girlfriend, and respondent Sandra K. Houghton.1
While questioning Young, the officer noticed a hypodermic syringe in Young’s shirt pocket. He left the occupants under the supervision of two backup officers as he went to get gloves from his patrol car. Upon his return, he instructed Young to step out of the car and place the syringe on the hood. The officer then asked Young why he had a syringe; with refreshing candor, Young replied that he used it to take drugs.2
At this point, the backup officers ordered the two passengers out of the car and asked them for identification. Respondent falsely identified herself as “Sandra James” and stated that she did not have any identification. Meanwhile, in light of Young’s admission, the officer searched the passenger compartment of the car for contraband. On the back seat, he found a purse, which respondent claimed as hers. He removed from the purse a wallet containing respondent’s driver’s license, identifying her properly as Sandra K. Houghton. When the officer asked her why she had lied about her name, she replied: “In case things went bad.”3
Continuing his search of the purse, the officer also found a brown pouch and a black wallet-type container.4 Respondent denied that the former was hers, and claimed ignorance of how it came to be there; it was found to contain drug paraphernalia and a syringe with 60 ccs of methamphetamine. Respondent admitted ownership of the black container, which was also found to contain drug paraphernalia, and a syringe (which respondent acknowledged was hers) with 10 ccs of methamphetamine. The officer also found fresh needle-track marks on respondent’s arms. He placed her under arrest.5
The State of Wyoming charged respondent with possession of methamphetamine in a liquid amount greater than three-tenths of a gram. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. §35-7-1031(c)(iii) (Supp. 1996). After a hearing, the trial court denied her motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the purse. A jury convicted respondent as charged.6 The Wyoming Supreme Court, by divided vote, reversed the conviction.7 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.8
Whether police officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they search a passenger’s personal belongings inside an automobile that they have probable cause to believe contains contraband?9
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.10 When officers have probable cause to search a vehicle for contraband, the permissible scope of the search extends to every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search, including containers belonging to passengers.11
No. The officers possessed probable cause to search the car for contraband after the driver admitted using the syringe to take drugs.12 They searched the passenger compartment where they located the respondent's purse on the back seat, a container capable of concealing drugs.13 The search of that purse fell within the established scope of a vehicle search.14 Probable cause to search the car justified examination of all containers that might hold the contraband, without regard to ownership by a passenger.15
Police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment when they search a passenger’s personal belongings inside an automobile that they have probable cause to believe contains contraband.16
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Breyer joined the opinion on the understanding that history informs but does not automatically determine Fourth Amendment answers.17 He stressed that requiring officers to determine container ownership before searching would undermine the workability of the bright-line rule from United States v. Ross.18 Breyer noted that the rule applies only to automobile searches and containers found within them, not to searches of persons.19
A purse found separate from its owner receives no automatic heightened protection under existing precedent.
Joined by Justice Souter And Justice Ginsburg
Justice Stevens dissented on the ground that the majority improperly extended the automobile exception to permit searches of passenger belongings based solely on the driver's conduct.20 He relied on United States v. Di Re to argue that probable cause to search a car does not justify searching a passenger or the passenger's personal effects.21 Stevens concluded that individualized probable cause was required for the purse.22
Passenger privacy interests outweigh law enforcement needs, quoting Di Re to emphasize that mere presence in a suspected car does not cause loss of immunities from search.23