Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Whren v. United States

United States Supreme Court
517 U.S. 806 (1996)


 

Facts

Plainclothes police officers pulled over a car for traffic violations after witnessing the driver make a turn without signaling and then speed down the road. Prior to observing these traffic violations, the police observed the two men in the car from a distance and became suspicious that a drug deal was taking place. Whren (defendant) was a passenger in the car and when the police approached the car they observed plastic bags of cocaine in Whren’s hands. Whren and the driver were arrested for illegal drug possession and convicted in federal court after the trial judge, over Whren’s objections, permitted the cocaine to be introduced into evidence. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers


Why does this rule not apply to inventory searches and administrative inspections?

If officers follow a standard operating procedure (which could be a very vague procedure; see Colorado v. Bertine) when performing an inventory search or administrative inspection, their intent doesn't matter. Right? Is this rule only trying to exclude situations where officers perform an inventory search or administrative inspection with no SOP because then the officer's intent would matter?

HYPO: An officer has a SOP that allows her to perform an inventory search but says she had no interest in promoting the interests justifying the search but hoped she would find contraband, and she does. Her intent doesn't matter if the SOP is in place, right? Or would her admission that she was conducting a suspicionless search invalidate the reasonableness even under the SOP?

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod.