# Illinois v. Andreas

> Supreme Court of the United States · July 5, 1983 · 463 U.S. 765

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429346

## Case

- **Full name:** Illinois v. Andreas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** July 5, 1983
- **Citations:** 463 U.S. 765; 51 U.S.L.W. 5157; 103 S. Ct. 3319; 77 L. Ed. 2d 1003; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 106
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stevens
- **Judges:** Burger, Brennan, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 529 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/9429346

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an expectation of privacy in the contents of a container, even if lawfully frustrated, may be regained by a gap in surveillance; provided only, however, that “there is a substantial likelihood that the contents of the container have been changed during the gap in …
- holding that “once a container has been found to a certainty to contain illicit drugs, the contraband becomes like objects physically within the plain view of the police, and the claim to privacy is lost” (footnote omitted)
- holding that the war-rantless reopening of a table containing marijuana, which was delivered to the respondent during a controlled delivery, did not violate respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights
- discussing the plain-view doctrine, which “authorizes seizure of illegal or evidentiary items visible to a police officer whose access to the object has some prior Fourth Amendment justification” and “is grounded on the proposition that once police are lawfully in a position t…
- explaining that if law enforcement officials are cooperating in investigation, “the knowledge of one is presumed shared by all”

## Opinion text

Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
The issue in this case is remarkably similar to the controlling issue in Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730 (1983): Was there “virtual certainty” that the police would find contraband inside an unusual container that they had lawfully seized? The unique character of the balloon in Brown , like the unique character of the metal case enclosing a table that in turn had been designed to conceal drugs, combined with other circumstantial evidence, provided powerful evidentiary support for the conclusion that contraband was inside the container. In this case, as in Brown , I believe the “absolute certainty” test applied by the state court was somewhat more strict than is required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I would therefore vacate the judgment of the Illinois Appellate Court and remand for further proceedings. *
If I were sitting as a trial judge, and actually had heard the evidence, I believe I would have found that there was virtual certainty that the police officers were correct in both cases. But, unlike my colleagues, I do not believe it is this Court’s province to make such factual determinations. See United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S. 499, 516-517 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); First National City Bank v. Banco para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U. S. 611, 636 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429346. Public record. Not legal advice.