totality of circumstances test

In the early morning hours, a Missouri police officer on highway patrol stopped Tyler McNeely’s truck at approximately 2:08 a.m. after observing it exceed the posted speed limit and repeatedly cross the centerline. The officer noticed several signs that McNeely was intoxicated, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol on his breath. McNeely acknowledged that he had consumed a couple of beers at a bar, appeared unsteady on his feet when he exited the truck, and performed poorly on a battery of field-sobriety tests before declining to use a portable breath-test device. The officer placed McNeely under arrest and began transporting him to the station house. When McNeely indicated that he would again refuse to provide a breath sample, the officer changed course and took him to a nearby hospital for blood testing without attempting to secure a warrant. Upon arrival at the hospital, the officer read McNeely a standard implied consent form explaining that refusal to submit voluntarily to the test would lead to immediate revocation of his driver’s license for one year and could be used against him in a future prosecution under Missouri law. McNeely nonetheless refused consent. The officer then directed a hospital lab technician to take a blood sample, which was secured at approximately 2:35 a.m. Subsequent laboratory testing measured McNeely’s blood alcohol concentration at 0.154 percent. McNeely was charged with driving while intoxicated. He moved to suppress the blood test result, arguing that taking his blood without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the exigency exception did not apply because, apart from the natural dissipation of blood alcohol, no circumstances suggested that the officer faced an emergency in which he could not practicably obtain a warrant. The Missouri Court of Appeals stated an intention to reverse but transferred the case directly to the Missouri Supreme Court, which affirmed the suppression order. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.

On October 18, 1976, six police officers arrived at Lawrence Marquess’ house in Bowling Green, Kentucky, with a warrant to arrest Marquess on drug distribution charges. Present in the house were Dennis Saddler, Keith Northern, Linda Braden, Vanessa Cox, and petitioner David Rawlings. While searching for Marquess, officers smelled marijuana smoke and saw marijuana seeds on a bedroom mantel. Officers Eddie Railey and John Bruce left to obtain a search warrant, while the remaining officers detained the occupants in the living room, permitting departure only upon consent to a body search. Northern and Braden consented and left; Saddler, Cox, and Rawlings remained. Approximately 45 minutes later, Railey and Bruce returned with a search warrant. After reading the warrant and Miranda warnings, Officer Don Bivens directed Cox to empty her purse onto a coffee table. The purse contained a jar with 1,800 LSD tablets and vials of other controlled substances. Cox then told Rawlings to take what was his, and he immediately claimed ownership of the substances. Railey searched Rawlings, finding $4,500 in cash and a knife, then placed him under arrest. Rawlings had arrived in Bowling Green about a week earlier and brought the drugs with him. On the morning of the arrest, he transferred the drugs from a green bank bag into Cox’s purse while at the house. There was conflicting testimony about whether Cox consented to carrying the drugs. Rawlings testified he asked Cox to carry them and she agreed, while Cox testified she refused and asked him to remove them. Rawlings was indicted for possession with intent to sell the controlled substances. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the drugs, money, and his statements, finding the search of the purse authorized by the warrant, that Rawlings lacked standing to contest it, and that the search of his person was justified by exigent circumstances. After a bench trial, he was convicted. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that the police had probable cause to arrest all occupants upon smelling marijuana. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed on different grounds. It held that Rawlings had no standing because he lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in Cox’s purse. The court also concluded that the search of his person was incident to a lawful arrest. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In September 1982, Oreste Fulminante reported his eleven-year-old stepdaughter Jeneane Michelle Hunt missing from Mesa, Arizona. Two days later her body was discovered in the desert east of Mesa, having been shot twice in the head at close range with a ligature around her neck. Fulminante became a suspect due to inconsistencies in his statements to police but left Arizona when no charges were filed against him. Fulminante was later convicted of a federal firearms violation in New Jersey and incarcerated at the Ray Brook Federal Correctional Institution in New York. There he became friends with another inmate, Anthony Sarivola, then serving a 60-day sentence for extortion. Sarivola, a former police officer, had been involved in loansharking for organized crime but then became a paid informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While at Ray Brook, he masqueraded as an organized crime figure. In October 1983, while walking on the prison track, Sarivola told Fulminante he had heard rumors that Fulminante was suspected of killing a child and offered to protect him from other inmates in exchange for the truth about the murder. Fulminante then admitted to Sarivola that he had driven Jeneane to the desert on his motorcycle, where he choked her, sexually assaulted her, and made her beg for her life, before shooting her twice in the head. After his release from prison in May 1984, Fulminante was rearrested in Arizona and indicted for the murder in September 1984. He also confessed the crime to Donna Sarivola, Anthony's fiancée and later wife, following his May 1984 release from prison. Both confessions were introduced at Fulminante's December 1985 trial in Arizona state court, resulting in his conviction and death sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the confession to Sarivola was coerced under the totality of the circumstances, that the second confession was its fruit, and that the admission of the first confession was not harmless error. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.