Brinegar v. United States
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 160 (1949)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Two federal Alcohol Tax Unit agents were parked beside the highway in Oklahoma, approximately five miles from the Missouri state line and along a known smuggling route. At the time, Missouri allowed the importation of liquor, but Oklahoma did not. Brinegar (defendant) drove past the agents from the direction of the state line, and one of the agents recognized both Brinegar and his car. During the preceding six months, the agent had arrested Brinegar for illegally transporting liquor and had seen Brinegar loading large amounts of liquor into a car in Joplin, Missouri, at least twice. The agent also knew that Brinegar had a reputation for smuggling liquor. Brinegar sped up as he passed the agents’ car, and they chased him, forcing him into a ditch. The officers asked Brinegar how much liquor he had in the car, to which Brinegar replied, “Not too much.” After further questioning, Brinegar admitted to having 12 cases of liquor. The officers arrested Brinegar and seized the liquor. Brinegar was tried in federal district court, where he moved to suppress the liquor from evidence, arguing that the search of his car and seizure of the liquor had violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The motion to suppress was denied, and Brinegar was convicted of illegally importing the liquor into Oklahoma. The court of appeals affirmed Brinegar’s conviction, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rutledge, J.)
Concurrence (Burton, J.)
Dissent (Jackson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.