# United States v. Peltier

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 25, 1975 · 422 U.S. 531

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426174

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Peltier
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 25, 1975
- **Citations:** 422 U.S. 531; 95 S. Ct. 2313; 45 L. Ed. 2d 374; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 155
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Douglas
- **Judges:** Douglas, Rehnquist, Stewart, Brennan
- **Cited by:** 536 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426174

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that another Supreme Court decision finding that a particular warrantless search lacked probable cause and contravened the Fourth Amendment would not be applied retroactively to defendant’s case even though it was pending on appeal on date the decision was announced
- holding not retroactive the rule in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973), which requires probable cause to justify automobile searches conducted by roving border patrols
- holding nonretroactive Al-meida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973), which invalidated warrantless automobile searches conducted without probable cause by roving border patrols
- holding nonretroactive Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973), which invalidated warrantless automobile searches conducted without probable cause by roving border patrols
- applying prospectively only the rule of Almeida-Sanchez v. United *481 States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S. Ct. 2535, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596 (1973), that a warrantless border search of an automobile without probable cause violated the fourth amendment

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
I agree with my Brother Brennan that Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), reaffirmed traditional Fourth Amendment principles and that the purposes of the exclusionary rule compel exclusion of the unconstitutionally seized evidence in this case. I adhere to my view that a constitutional rule made retroactive in one case must be applied retroactively in all. See my dissent in Daniel v. Louisiana, 420 U. S. 31, 33 (1975), and cases cited. It is largely a matter of chance that we held the Border Patrol to the command of the Fourth Amendment in Almeida-Sanchez rather than in the case of this defendant. Equal justice does not permit a defendant’s fate to depend upon such a fortuity. The judgment below should be affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426174. Public record. Not legal advice.