# Maryland v. Dyson

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 21, 1999 · 527 U.S. 465

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795107

## Case

- **Full name:** Maryland v. Dyson
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 21, 1999
- **Citations:** 527 U.S. 465; 119 S. Ct. 2013; 144 L. Ed. 2d 442; 1999 U.S. LEXIS 4200
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Breyer
- **Judges:** Breyer
- **Cited by:** 642 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/9795107

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that AIf a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment . . . permits police to search the whole vehicle without more@ and rejecting the proposition that exigent circumstances are necessary to trigger the Aa…
- explaining that “If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment . . . permits police to search the whole vehicle without more” and rejecting the proposition that exigent circumstances are necessary to trigger the “a…
- holding that probable cause supported police search of a vehicle when a “reliable confidential informant” told officers that “a rented red Toyota” with a particular license number would contain drugs
- holding exigent circumstances need not exist, be yond a vehicle’s inherent mobility, and probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband
- holding that where probable cause for the search of an automobile exists, an officer need not show exigent circumstances beyond the inherent mobility of the vehicle in order to justify a search

## Opinion text

*468 Justice Breyer,
with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting.
I agree that the Court’s per curiam opinion correctly states the law, but because respondent’s counsel is not a member of this Court’s bar and did not wish to become one, respondent has not filed a brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari. I believe we should not summarily reverse in a criminal case, irrespective of the merits, where the respondent is represented by a counsel unable to file a response, without first inviting an attorney to file a brief as amicus curiae in response to the petition for certiorari. For this reason, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795107. Public record. Not legal advice.