United States v. Mendenhall

446 U.S. 544 (1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Respondent arrived at the airport and was observed by two agents of the DEA. After observing the respondent's conduct, which appeared to the agents to be characteristic of persons unlawfully carrying narcotics, they approached and asked for identification. Her ticket was in the name of another person. She said she 'just felt like using that name.' When she was told they were DEA agents, she 'became quite shaken and extremely nervous.” She had a hard time speaking.' She was asked to come to the office for further questions. She was asked to search her bags and was told she could refuse and she gave verbal permission. Her purse had another ticket purchased in another name. A female police officer then arrived to conduct the search of the respondent's person. She asked the agents if the respondent had consented to be searched. The agents said that she had, and the respondent followed the policewoman into a private room. There the policewoman again asked the respondent if she consented to the search, and the respondent replied that she did. The policewoman explained that the search would require that the respondent remove her clothing. The respondent stated that she had a plane to catch and was assured by the policewoman that if she were carrying no narcotics, there would be no problem. The respondent then began to disrobe without further comment. As the respondent removed her clothing, she took from her undergarments two small packages, one of which appeared to contain heroin, and handed both to the policewoman. The agents then arrested the respondent for possessing heroin. The District Court denied the motion to suppress. The court concluded that there was a valid Terry stop based on specific and articulable facts that justified a suspicion of criminal activity. She has also voluntarily accompanied the agents. The Court of Appeals reversed. They held that the agents could not reasonably have suspected criminal activity in that case, for the reason that 'the activities of the [persons] observed by DEA agents, were consistent with innocent behavior.' It held that asking a suspect to accompany the agents to a private room for further questioning constituted an arrest requiring probable cause. They held that the consent to the search, in that case, had not been voluntarily given, principally because it was the fruit of what the court believed to have been an unconstitutional detention.