search of car after occupant placed in custody and taken to courthouse not valid as incident to arrest
How later courts described this case
- search of car after occupant placed in custody and taken to courthouse not valid as incident to arrest
- "The cases . . . have . . . always insisted that the officers conducting the search have 'reasonable or probable cause' to believe that they will find the instrumentality of a crime or evidence pertaining to a crime before they begin their warrantless search"
- alleged criminal contemnors not entitled to jury trials under federal constitution where maximum penalty is within “petty offense” limit
- search of vehicle held not pursuant to arrest when vehicle was parked outside jail to which arrestee had been taken
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*223 Mr. Justice Black,
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,
dissenting.
The Court holds in this case, as it said in dictum in Bloom v. Illinois, ante, p. 194, that persons charged with so-called “petty” crimes are not entitled to trial by jury. I am not as sure as the Court seems to be that this classification should be used to deprive a criminal defendant of a jury trial. See my dissenting opinion in Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 193-219 . The word “petty” has no exact meaning, and until it is given a better definition than that which the Court gives to it today, I do not desire to condemn the right to trial by jury to such an uncertain fate. See Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373, 384-393 (dissenting opinion). My Brother Harlan’s dissent in Duncan v. Louisiana, ante, p. 171, points out that whippings, even where 31 lashes were inflicted, were classified as petty crimes. And the Court here states that six months’ punishment is petty. I am loath to hold whippings or six months’ punishment as “petty.” And here, where the offense is punishable by a $50 fine and 10 days in jail behind bars, I feel the same way. Even though there be some offenses that are “petty,” I would not hold that this offense falls in that category. See my dissenting opinion in United States v. Barnett, 376 U. S. 681, 727 . Since I would reverse and remand this case for a trial by jury, I do not find it necessary to consider the other questions decided by the Court.