1. Brinegar v. United States
338 U.S. 160 (1949)
Issue
Under Oklahoma law, is evidence obtained during a search and seizure, allegedly
without the presence of probable cause, admissible? And does the admission of this
allegedly improperly obtained evidence contravene rights outlined under the fourth
amendment and thus vitiate conviction?
Rule
Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge,
and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves
to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is or has been committed.
Pp. 338 U. S. 175-176. A case relevant to mention here and which was adhered to in this
case, is the decision in Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132. In this case it was decided
that under the fourth amendment a valid search of a vehicle travelling on a public
highway might be had without a warrant, only if probable cause for the search exists.
Analysis
The petitioner, Brinegar, was convicted in a federal district court for a violation of the
Liquor Enforcement Act of 1936, on charges of transporting intoxicating liquor into
Oklahoma contrary to the laws of that State, he later appealed, arguing that the evidence
was collected unlawfully as probable cause was absent. On March 3rd 1947,officers
Malsed and Creehan, recognized petitioner from a prior arrest and his car, which
appeared to be heavily loaded, going west in Oklahoma not far from the Missouri line.
They gave chase, overtook petitioner, and forced his car to the side of the road. Upon
interrogation, petitioner admitted that he had twelve cases of liquor in his car, whereupon
the officers searched the car, seized the liquor and arrested petitioner. The conviction Is
justified as the facts and circumstances prior to the admission by the petitioner where
already sufficient to amount to PC as the officers’ own observations comparable to that of
an ordinary reasonable prudent person and the petitioner’s predisposition reflected in his
prior arrest for the same illegal act and his reputation were sufficient to warrant a search.
The officers also did not only rely solely on these facts and circumstances to justify the
search, they then proceeded to ask the petitioner if he was in possession of the spirited
beverages to which he admitted, this admittance can be taken as corroboration and thus
satisfies the requirements for probable cause. Consequently, pursuant to the decision in
Carroll v. United States, the search is valid despite the absence of a warrant because
probable cause for the search exists as aforementioned.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision held in the lower court as probable cause was
found to be present upon review of the facts and circumstances and relevant case law.