United States v. Watson

423 U.S. 411 (1976)

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

Khoury informed a postal inspector (P) that Watson (D) was in possession of a stolen credit card and had asked Khoury to cooperate in using the card to their mutual advantage. Khoury had provided the inspector with reliable information on postal inspection matters on 5-10 prior instances. Later that day Khoury delivered the card to the inspector. P learned that D had agreed to furnish additional cards, and asked Khoury to arrange to meet with D. Khoury had been instructed that if D had additional stolen credit cards, Khoury was to give a designated signal. The signal was given, the officers closed in, and D was arrested. D was given Miranda warnings. D had no credit cards on his person, and the inspector asked if he could look inside D's car, which was standing within view. D said, 'Go ahead,' and repeated these words when the inspector cautioned that 'if I find anything, it is going to go against you.' Using keys furnished by D, the inspector entered the car and found under the floor mat an envelope containing two credit cards in the names of other persons. These cards were the basis for two counts of a four-count indictment charging D with possessing stolen mail. D moved to suppress the cards, claiming that his arrest was illegal for want of probable cause and an arrest warrant and that his consent to search the car was involuntary and ineffective because he had not been told that he could withhold consent. The motion was denied, and D was convicted of illegally possessing the two cards seized from his car. The Ninth Circuit reversed. The court held the arrest unconstitutional because the postal inspector had failed to secure an arrest warrant although he concededly had time to do so. Second, based on the totality of the circumstances, one of which was the illegality of the arrest, the court held D's consent to search had been coerced and hence was not a valid ground for the warrantless search of the automobile. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.