author: Chief Justice Rehnquist Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stevens,

text:
    OHIO v. ROBINETTE
    No. 95-891.
    Argued October 8, 1996
    Decided November 18, 1996

      Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O’Con-nor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 40. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 45.

      Carley J. Ingram argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs was Mathias H. Heck, Jr.

    on Irving L. Gornstein argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. On the brief were Solicitor General Days, Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, Paul A. Engel-mayer, and Joseph C. Wyderko. brief for

      mayer, James D. Ruppert argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were bama et al. by Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General of Ohio, Jeffrey S. Sutton, State Solicitor, and Simon B. Karas, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Daniel E. Lungren of California, Gale A. Norton of Colorado, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Robert Butterworth of Florida, Margery S. Bronster of Hawaii, Alan G. Lance of Idaho, Jim Ryan of Illinois, Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, A. B. Chandler III of Kentucky, Richard P. leyoub of Louisiana, Andrew Ketterer of Maine, J Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Scott Harshbarger of Massachusetts, Frank J. Kelley of Michigan, Hubert H. Humphrey III of Minnesota, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Joseph P. Ma-zurek of Montana, Don Stenberg of Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa
        of Nevada, Jeffrey R. Howard of New Hampshire, Deborah T. Poritz of New Jersey, Dennis C. Vacco of New York, Michael F. Easley of North Carolina, W. A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Theodore Kulongoski of Oregon, Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., of Pennsylvania, Jeffrey B. Pine of Rhode Island, Mark Bennett of South Dakota, Charles W. Bursen of Tennessee, Dan Morales of Texas, Jeffrey L. Amestoy of Vermont, James S. Gilmore III of Virginia, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia, James E. Doyle of Wisconsin, and William U. Hill of Wyoming; and for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., by Fred E. lnbau, Wayne W. Schmidt, James P. Manak, and Bernard J. Farber.

        Tracey Maclin, Steven R. Shapiro, and Jeffrey M. Gamso filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.
      Briefs of amicus curiae were filed for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Sheryl Gordon McCloud; and for the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by W. Andrew Hasselbach.

   Chief Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are here presented with the question whether the Fourth Amendment requires that a lawfully seized defendant must be advised that he is “free to go” before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary. We hold that it does not.

This case arose on a stretch of Interstate 70 north of Dayton, Ohio, where the posted speed limit was 45 miles per hour because of construction. Respondent Robert D. Robi-nette was clocked at 69 miles per hour as he drove his car along this stretch of road, and was stopped by Deputy Roger Newsome of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office. New-some asked for and was handed Robinette’s driver’s license, and he ran a computer check which indicated that Robinette had no previous violations. Newsome then asked Robinette to step out of his car, turned on his mounted video camera, issued a verbal warning to Robinette, and returned his license.

At this point, Newsome asked, “One question before you get gone: ]A]re you carrying any illegal contraband in your car? Any weapons of any kind, drugs, anything like that?” App. to Brief for Respondent 2 (internal quotation marks omitted). Robinette answered “no” to these questions, after which Deputy Newsome asked if he could search the car. Robinette consented. In the car, Deputy Newsome discovered a small amount of marijuana and, in a film container, a pill which was later determined to be methylenedioxymeth-amphetamine (MDMA). Robinette was then arrested and charged with knowing possession of a controlled substance, MDMA, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2925.11(A) (1993).

Before trial, Robinette unsuccessfully sought to suppress this evidence. He then pleaded “no contest,” and was found guilty. On appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the search resulted from an unlawful detention. The Supreme Court of Ohio, by a divided vote, affirmed. 73 Ohio St. 3d 650, 653 N. E. 2d 695 (1995). In its opinion, that court established a bright-line prerequisite for consensual interrogation under these circumstances:

“The right, guaranteed by the federal and Ohio Constitutions, to be secure in one’s person and property requires that citizens stopped for traffic offenses be clearly informed by the detaining officer when they are free to go after a valid detention, before an officer attempts to engage in a consensual interrogation. Any attempt at consensual interrogation must be preceded by the phrase At this time you legally are free to go’ or by words of similar import.” Id., at 650-651, 653 N. E. 2d, at 696.

We granted certiorari, 516 U. S. 1157 (1996), to review this per se rule, and we now reverse. to

per se We must first consider whether we have jurisdiction to review the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision. Respondent contends that we lack such jurisdiction because the Ohio decision rested upon the Ohio Constitution, in addition to the Federal Constitution. Under Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (1983), when “a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, we will accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal law required it to do so.” Id., at 1040-1041. Although the opinion below mentions Art. I, §14, of the Ohio Constitution in passing (a section which reads identically to the Fourth Amendment), the opinion clearly relies on federal law nevertheless. Indeed, the only cases it discusses or even cites are federal cases, except for one state case which itself applies the Federal Constitution.

Our jurisdiction is not defeated by the fact that these citations appear in the body of the opinion, while, under Ohio law, “[the] Supreme Court speaks as a court only through the syllabi of its cases.” See Ohio v. Gallagher, 425 U. S. 257, 259 (1976). When the syllabus, as here, speaks only in general terms of “the federal and Ohio Constitutions,” it is permissible for us to turn to the body of the opinion to discern the grounds for decision. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U. S. 562, 566 (1977).

Respondent Robinette also contends that we may not reach the question presented in the petition because the Supreme Court of Ohio also held, as set out in the syllabus paragraph (1):

“When the motivation behind a police officer’s continued detention of a person stopped for a traffic violation is not related to the purpose of the original, constitutional stop, and when that continued detention is not based on any articulable facts giving rise to a suspicion of some separate illegal activity justifying an extension of the detention, the continued detention constitutes an illegal seizure.” 73 Ohio St. 3d, at 650, 653 N. E. 2d, at 696.

In reliance on this ground, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that when Newsome returned to Robinette’s car and asked him to get out of the car, after he had determined in his own mind not to give Robinette a ticket, the detention then became unlawful.

Respondent failed to make any such argument in his brief in opposition to certiorari. See this Court’s Rule 15.2. We believe the issue as to the continuing legality of the detention is a “predicate to an intelligent resolution” of the question presented, and therefore “fairly included therein.” This Court’s Rule 14.1(a); Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252, 258-259, n. 5 (1980). The parties have briefed this issue, and we proceed to decide it.

We think that under our recent decision it. United States, 517 U. S. 806 (1996) (decided after the Supreme Court of Ohio decided the present case), the subjective intentions of the officer did not make the continued detention of respondent illegal under the Fourth Amendment. As we made clear in Whren, “ ‘the fact that [an] officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer’s action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action.’ . . . Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.” Id., at 813 (quoting Scott v. United States, 436 U. S. 128, 138 (1978)). And there is no question that, in light of the admitted probable cause to stop Robinette for speeding, Deputy Newsome was objectively justified in asking Robinette to get out of the car, subjective thoughts notwithstanding. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 111, n. 6 (1977) (“We hold . . . that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures”).

We now turn to the merits of the question presented. We have long held that the “touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U. S. 248, 250 (1991). Reasonableness, in turn, is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.

In applying this test we have consistently eschewed bright-line rules, instead emphasizing the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry. Thus, in Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491 (1983), we expressly disavowed any “litmus-paper test” or single “sentence or . . . paragraph . . . rule,” in recognition of the “endless variations in the facts and circumstances” implicating the Fourth Amendment. Id., at 506. Then, in Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U. S. 567 (1988), when both parties urged “bright-line rule[s] applicable to all investigatory pursuits,” we rejected both proposed rules as contrary to our “traditional contextual approach.” Id., at 572-573. And again, in Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429 (1991), when the Florida Supreme Court adopted a per se rule that questioning aboard a bus always constitutes a seizure, we reversed, reiterating that the proper inquiry necessitates a consideration of “all the circumstances surrounding the encounter.” Id., at 439.

We have previously rejected a per se rule very similar to that adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio in determining the validity of a consent to search. In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (1973), it was argued that such a consent could not be valid unless the defendant knew that he had a right to refuse the request. We rejected this argument: “While knowledge of the right to refuse consent is one factor to be taken into account, the government need not establish such knowledge as the sine qua non of an effective consent.” Id., at 227. And just as it “would be thoroughly impractical to impose on the normal consent search the detailed requirements of an effective warning,” id., at 231, so too would it be unrealistic to require police officers to always inform detainees that they are free to go before a consent to search may be deemed voluntary.

The Fourth Amendment test for a valid consent to search is that the consent be voluntary, and “[v]oluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances,” id., at 248-249. The Supreme Court of Ohio having held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Ginsburg,

concurring in the judgment.

Robert Robinette’s traffic stop for a speeding violation on an interstate highway in Ohio served as prelude to a search of his automobile for illegal drugs. Robinette’s experience was not uncommon in Ohio. As the Ohio Supreme Court related, the sheriff’s deputy who detained Robinette for speeding and then asked Robinette for permission to search his vehicle “was on drug interdiction patrol at the time.” 73 Ohio St. 3d 650, 651, 653 N. E. 2d 695, 696 (1995). The deputy testified in Robinette’s case that he routinely requested permission to search automobiles he stopped for traffic violations. Ibid. According to the deputy’s testimony in another prosecution, he requested consent to search in 786 traffic stops in 1992, the year of Robinette’s arrest. State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App. 3d 586, 594, n. 3, 639 N. E. 2d 498, 503, n. 3, dism’d, 69 Ohio St. 3d 1488, 635 N. E. 2d 43 (1994).

From their unique vantage point, Ohio’s courts observed that traffic stops in the State were regularly giving way to contraband searches, characterized as consensual, even when officers had no reason to suspect illegal activity. One Ohio appellate court noted: “[Hjundreds, and perhaps thousands of Ohio citizens are being routinely delayed in their travels and asked to relinquish to uniformed police officers their right to privacy in their automobiles and luggage, sometimes for no better reason than to provide an officer the opportunity to ‘practice’ his drug interdiction technique.” 93 Ohio App. 3d, at 594, 639 N. E. 2d, at 503 (footnote omitted).

Against this background, the Ohio Supreme Court determined, and announced in Robinette’s case, that the federal and state constitutional rights of Ohio citizens to be secure in their persons and property called for the protection of a clear-cut instruction to the State’s police officers: An officer wishing to engage in consensual interrogation of a motorist at the conclusion of a traffic stop must first tell the motorist that he or she is free to go. The Ohio Supreme Court described the need for its first-tell-then-ask rule this way:

“The transition between detention and a consensual exchange can be so seamless that the untrained eye may not notice that it has occurred....
“Most people believe that they are validly in a police officer’s custody as long as the officer continues to interrogate them. The police officer retains the upper hand and the accouterments of authority. That the officer lacks legal license to continue to detain them is unknown to most citizens, and a reasonable person would not feel free to walk away as the officer continues to address him.
“While the legality of consensual encounters between police and citizens should be preserved, we do not believe that this legality should be used by police officers to turn a routine traffic stop into a fishing expedition for unrelated criminal activity. The Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution exist to protect citizens against such an unreasonable interference with their liberty.” 73 Ohio St. 3d, at 654-655, 653 N. E. 2d, at 698-699.

Today’s opinion reversing the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court does not pass judgment on the wisdom of the first-tell-then-ask rule. This Court’s opinion simply clarifies that the Ohio Supreme Court’s instruction to police officers in Ohio is not, under this Court’s controlling jurisprudence, the command of the Federal Constitution. See ante, at 39-40. The Ohio Supreme Court invoked both the Federal Constitution and the Ohio Constitution without clearly indicating whether state law, standing alone, independently justified the court’s rule. The ambiguity in the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision renders this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction proper under Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1040-1042 (1983), and this Court’s decision on the merits is consistent with the Court’s “totality of the circumstances” Fourth Amendment precedents, see ante, at 39. I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment.

I write separately, however, because it seems to me improbable that the Ohio Supreme Court understood its first-tell-then-ask rule to be the Federal Constitution’s mandate for the Nation as a whole. “[A] State is free as a matter of its own law to impose greater restrictions on police activity than those this Court holds to be necessary upon federal constitutional standards.” Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714, 719 (1975). But ordinarily, when a state high court grounds a rule of criminal procedure in the Federal Constitution, the court thereby signals its view that the Nation’s Constitution would require the rule in all 50 States. Given this Court’s decisions in consent-to-search cases such as Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (1973), and Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429 (1991), however, I suspect that the Ohio Supreme Court may not have homed in on the implication ordinarily to be drawn from a state court’s reliance on the Federal Constitution. In other words, I question whether the Ohio court thought of the strict rule it announced as a rule for the governance of police conduct not only in Miami County, Ohio, but also in Miami, Florida.

The first-tell-then-ask rule seems to be a prophylactic measure not so much extracted from the text of any constitutional provision as crafted by the Ohio Supreme Court to reduce the number of violations of textually guaranteed rights. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), this Court announced a similarly motivated rule as a minimal national requirement without suggesting that the text of the Federal Constitution required the precise measures the Court’s opinion set forth. See id., at 467 (“[T]he Constitution [does not] necessarily requirfe] adherence to any particular solution” to the problems associated with custodial interrogations.); see also Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, 306 (1985) (“The Miranda exclusionary rule . . . sweeps more broadly than the Fifth Amendment itself.”). Although all parts of the United States fall within this Court’s domain, the Ohio Supreme Court is not similarly situated. That court can declare prophylactic rules governing the conduct of officials in Ohio, but it cannot command the police forces of sister States. The very ease with which the Court today disposes of the federal leg of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision strengthens my impression that the Ohio Supreme Court saw its rule as a measure made for Ohio, designed to reinforce in that State the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s syllabus and opinion, however, were ambiguous. Under Long, the existence of ambiguity regarding the federal- or state-law basis of a state-court decision will trigger this Court’s jurisdiction. Long governs even when, all things considered, the more plausible reading of the state court’s decision may be that the state court did not regard the Federal Constitution alone as a sufficient basis for its ruling. Compare Arizona v, Evans, 514 U. S. 1, 7-9 (1995), with id., at 31-33 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). deter-

It is incumbent on a state court, therefore, when it determines that its State’s laws call for protection more complete than the Federal Constitution demands, to be clear about its ultimate reliance on state law. Similarly, a state court announcing a new legal rule arguably derived from both federal and state law can definitively render state law an adequate and independent ground for its decision by a simple declaration to that effect. A recent Montana Supreme Court opinion on the scope of an individual’s privilege against self-incrimination includes such a declaration:

“While we have devoted considerable time to a lengthy discussion of the application of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is to be noted that this holding is also based separately and independently on [the defendant’s] right to remain silent pursuant to Article II, Section 25 of the Montana Constitution.” State v. Fuller, 276 Mont. 155, 167, 915 P. 2d 809, 816, cert. denied, post, p. 930.

An explanation of this order meets the Court’s instruction in Long that “[i]f the state court decision indicates clearly and expressly that it is alternatively based on bona fide separate, adequate, and independent grounds, [this Court] will not undertake to review the decision.” 463 U. S., at 1041.

On remand, the Ohio Supreme Court may choose to clarify that its instructions to law enforcement officers in Ohio find adequate and independent support in state law, and that in issuing these instructions, the court endeavored to state dis-positively only the law applicable in Ohio. See Evans, 514 U. S., at 30-34 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). To avoid misunderstanding, the Ohio Supreme Court must itself speak with the clarity it sought to require of its State’s police officers. The efficacy of its endeavor to safeguard the liberties of Ohioans without disarming the State’s police can then be tested in the precise way Our Federalism was designed to work. See, e. g., Kaye, State Courts at the Dawn of a New Century: Common Law Courts Reading Statutes and Constitutions., 70 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 1,11-18 (1995); Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States’ Bills of Rights, 9 U. Balt. L. Rev. 379, 392-396 (1980).

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

The Court’s holding today is narrow: The Federal Constitution does not require that a lawfully seized person be advised that he is “free to go” before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary. I agree with that holding. Given the Court’s reading of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio, I also agree that it is appropriate for the Court to limit its review to answering the sole question presented in the State’s certiorari petition. As I read the state-court opinion, however, the prophylactic rule announced in the second syllabus was intended as a guide to the decision of future cases rather than an explanation of the decision in this case. I would therefore affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio because it correctly held that respondent’s consent to the search of his vehicle was the product of an unlawful detention. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that nothing in the Federal Constitution — or in this Court’s opinion — prevents a State from requiring its law enforcement officers to give detained motorists the advice mandated by the Ohio court.

I

The relevant facts are undisputed. Officer Newsome stopped respondent because he was speeding. Neither at the time of the stop nor at any later time prior to the search of respondent’s vehicle did the officer have any basis for believing that there were drugs in the car. After ordering respondent to get out of his car, issuing a warning, and returning his driver’s license, Newsome took no further action related to the speeding violation. He did, however, state: “One question before you get gone: are you carrying any illegal contraband in your car? Any weapons of any kind, drugs, anything like that?” Thereafter, he obtained respondent’s consent to search the car. of law: whether re-

These facts give rise to two questions of law: whether respondent was still being detained when the “one question” was asked, and, if so, whether that detention was unlawful. In my opinion the Ohio Appellate Court and the Ohio Supreme Court correctly answered both of those questions. United

Supreme The Ohio Supreme Court correctly relied upon United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544 (1980), which stated that “a person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment ... if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” Id., at 554 (opinion of Stewart, J.); see Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U. S. 567, 573 (1988) (noting that “[t]he Court has since embraced this test”). See also Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, 435-436 (1991) (applying variant of this approach). The Ohio Court of Appeals applied a similar analysis. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 17-18.

Several circumstances support the Ohio courts’ conclusion that a reasonable motorist in respondent’s shoes would have believed that he had an obligation to answer the “one question” and that he could not simply walk away from the officer, get back in his car, and drive away. The question itself sought an answer “before you get gone.” In addition, the facts that respondent had been detained, had received no advice that he was free to leave, and was then standing in front of a television camera in response to an official command are all inconsistent with an assumption that he could reasonably believe that he had no duty to respond. The Ohio Supreme Court was surely correct in stating: “Most people believe that they are validly in a police officer’s custody as long as the officer continues to interrogate them. The police officer retains the upper hand and the accouterments of authority. That the officer lacks legal license to continue to detain them is unknown to most citizens, and a reasonable person would not feel free to walk away as the officer continues to address him.” 73 Ohio St. 3d, at 655, 653 N. E. 2d, at 698.

Moreover, as an objective matter it is fair to presume that most drivers who have been stopped for speeding are in a hurry to get to their destinations; such drivers have no interest in prolonging the delay occasioned by the' stop just to engage in idle conversation with an officer, much less to allow a potentially lengthy search. I also assume that motorists — even those who are not carrying contraband — have an interest in preserving the privacy of their vehicles and possessions from the prying eyes of a curious stranger. The fact that this particular officer successfully used a similar method of obtaining consent to search roughly 786 times in one year, State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App. 3d 586, 591-592, 639 N. E. 2d 498, 502, dism’d, 69 Ohio St. 3d 1488, 635 N. E. 2d 43 (1994), indicates that motorists generally respond in a manner that is contrary to their self-interest. Repeated decisions by ordinary citizens to surrender that interest cannot satisfactorily be explained on any hypothesis other than an assumption that they believed they had a legal duty to do so.

so. The Ohio Supreme Court was therefore entirely correct to presume in the first syllabus preceding its opinion that a “continued detention” was at issue here. 73 Ohio St. 3d, at 650, 653 N. E. 2d, at 696. The Ohio Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion. In response to the State’s contention that Robinette “was free to go” at the time consent was sought, that court held — after reviewing the record— that “a reasonable person in Robinette’s position would not believe that the investigative stop had been concluded, and that he or she was free to go, so long as the police officer was continuing to ask investigative questions.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 17-18. As I read the Ohio opinions, these determinations were independent of the bright-line rule criticized by the majority. I see no reason to disturb them.

In the first syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court also answered the question whether the officer’s continued detention of respondent was lawful or unlawful. See ante, at 37-38. Although there is a possible ambiguity in the use of the word “motivation” in the Ohio Supreme Court’s explanation of why the traffic officer’s continued detention of respondent was an illegal seizure, the first syllabus otherwise was a correct statement of the relevant federal rule as well as the relevant Ohio rule. As this Court points out in its opinion, as a matter of federal law the subjective motivation of the officer does not determine the legality of a detention. Because I assume that the learned judges sitting on the Ohio Supreme Court were well aware of this proposition, we should construe the syllabus generously by replacing the ambiguous term “motivation behind” with the term “justification for” in order to make the syllabus unambiguously state the correct rule of federal law. So amended, the controlling proposition of federal law reads:

“When the [justification for] a police officer’s continued detention of a person stopped for a traffic violation is not related to the purpose of the original, constitutional stop, and when that continued detention is not based on any articulable facts giving rise to a suspicion of some separate illegal activity justifying an extension of the detention, the continued detention constitutes an illegal seizure.” 73 Ohio St. 3d, at 650, 653 N. E. 2d, at 696.

Notwithstanding that the subjective motivation for the officer’s decision to stop respondent related to drug interdiction, the legality of the stop depended entirely on the fact that respondent was speeding. Of course, “[a]s a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.” Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 810 (1996). As noted above, however, by the time Robi-nette was asked for consent to search his automobile, the lawful traffic stop had come to an end; Robinette had been given his warning, and the speeding violation provided no further justification for detention. The continued detention was therefore only justifiable, if at all, on some other grounds. vehicle did

At no time prior to the search of respondent’s vehicle did any articulable facts give rise to a reasonable suspicion of some separate illegal activity that would justify further detention. See United States v. Sharpe, 470 U. S. 675, 682 (1985); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 881-882 (1975); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 21 (1968). As an objective matter, it inexorably follows that when the officer had completed his task of either arresting or reprimanding the driver of the speeding car, his continued detention of that person constituted an illegal seizure. This holding by the Ohio Supreme Court is entirely consistent with federal law.

The proper disposition follows as an application of well-settled law. We held in Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491 (1983), that a consent obtained during an illegal detention is ordinarily ineffective to justify an otherwise invalid search. See also Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S., at 433-434 (noting that if consent was given during the course of an unlawful seizure, the results of the search “must be suppressed as tainted fruit”); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 218-219 (1979); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 601-602 (1975). Cf. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963). Because Robi-nette’s consent to the search was the product of an unlawful detention, “the consent was tainted by the illegality and was ineffective to justify the search.” Royer, 460 U. S., at 507-508 (plurality opinion). I would therefore affirm the judgment below.

II

A point correctly raised by Justice Ginsburg merits emphasis. The Court’s opinion today does not address either the wisdom of the rule announced in the second syllabus preceding the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion or the validity of that rule as a matter of Ohio law. Nevertheless the risk that the narrowness of the Court’s holding may not be fully understood prompts these additional words. from

There is no rule of federal law that precludes Ohio from requiring its police officers to give its citizens warnings that will help them to understand whether a valid traffic stop has come to an end, and will help judges to decide whether a reasonable person would have felt free to leave under the circumstances at issue in any given case. Nor, as I have previously observed, is there anything "in the Federal Constitution that prohibits a State from giving lawmaking power to its courts.” Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U. S. 456, 479, and n. 3 (1981) (dissenting opinion). Thus, as far as we are concerned, whether Ohio acts through one branch of its government or another, it has the same power to enforce a warning rule as other States that may adopt such rules by executive action.

Moreover, while I recognize that warning rules provide benefits to the law enforcement profession and the courts, as well as to the public, I agree that it is not our function to pass judgment on the wisdom of such rules. Accordingly, while I have concluded that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio should be affirmed, and thus dissent from this Court’s disposition of the case, I am in full accord with its conclusion that the Federal Constitution neither mandates nor prohibits the warnings prescribed by the Ohio Court. Whether such a practice should be followed in Ohio is a matter for Ohio lawmakers to decide.

      Respondent and his amici ask us to take this opportunity to depart from Michigan v. Long. We are no more persuaded by this argument now than we were two Terms ago, see Arizona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1 (1995), and we again reaffirm the Long presumption.

      Formerly, the Ohio Supreme Court was “reluctant to use the Ohio Constitution to extend greater protection to the rights and civil liberties of Ohio citizens” and had usually not taken advantage of opportunities to “us[e] the Ohio Constitution as an independent source of constitutional rights.” Arnold v. Cleveland, 67 Ohio St. 3d 35, 42, n. 8, 616 N. E. 2d 163, 168, n. 8 (1993). Recently, however, the state high court declared: “The Ohio Constitution is a document of independent force. ... As long as state courts provide at least as much protection as the United States Supreme Court has provided in its interpretation of the federal Bill of Rights, state courts are unrestricted in according greater civil liberties and protections to individuals and groups.” Id., at 35, 616 N. E. 2d, at 164 (syllabus).

       “Whether the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires police officers to inform motorists, lawfully stopped for traffic violations, that the legal detention has concluded before any subsequent interrogation or search will be found to be consensual?” Pet. for Cert. i.

       This is in part because crucial portions of the exchange were videotaped; this recording is a part of the record.

       See 73 Ohio St. 3d 650, 654, 653 N. E. 2d 695, cord.

       A learned commentator has expressed agreement on this point. See 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.3(a), p. 112 (3d ed. 1996 and Supp. 1997) (“Given the fact that [defendant] quite clearly had been seized when his car was pulled over, the return of the credentials hardly manifests a change in status when it was immediately followed by interrogation concerning other criminal activity”); see also ibid, (approving of Ohio Supreme Court’s analysis in this case). We have indicated as much ourselves in the past. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 436 (1984) (“Certainly few motorists would feel free either to disobey a directive to pull over or to leave the scene of a traffic stop without being told they might do so”).

       Though this search does not appear to have been particularly intrusive, that may not always be so. See Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 28-29. Indeed, our holding in Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U. S. 248 (1991), allowing police to open closed containers in the context of an automobile consent search where the “consent would reasonably be understood to extend to a particular container,” id., at 252, ensures that many motorists will wind up “consenting” to a far broader search than they might have imagined. See id., at 254-255 (“only objection that the police could have to” a rule requiring police to seek consent to search containers as well as the automobile itself “is that it would prevent them from exploiting the ignorance of a citizen who simply did not anticipate that his consent to search the car would be understood to authorize the police to rummage through his packages”) (Marshall, J., dissenting). Ohio Court opin-

       It is ordinarily the syllabus that precedes ion, rather than the opinion itself, that states the law of the case. Cassidy v. Glossip, 12 Ohio St. 2d 17, 24, 231 N. E. 2d 64, 68 (1967); see Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U. S. 75, 86, n. 8 (1984); Ohio v. Gallagher, 425 U. S. 257, 259 (1976).

       Indeed, the first paragraph of the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion clearly indicates that the bright-line rule was meant to apply only in future cases. The Ohio Supreme Court first explained: “We find that the search was invalid since it was the product of an unlawful seizure.” 73 Ohio St. 3d, at 652, 653 N. E. 2d, at 697. Only then did the court proceed to point out that it would “also use this case to establish a bright-line test_” Ibid.

       Cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 500 (1983) (plurality opinion) (“[A]n investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop”); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 881 (1975) (“stop and inquiry must be ‘reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation’ ” (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 29 (1968)).

       Since “this Court reviews judgments, not opinions,” Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842 (1984), the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding that Robinette’s continued seizure was illegal on these grounds provides a sufficient basis for affirming its judgment.

       Writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice White explained that “statements given during a period of illegal detention are inadmissible even though voluntarily given if they are the product of the illegal detention and not the result of an independent act of free will.” 460 U. S., at 501. The defendant in Royer had been “illegally detained when he consented to the search.” Id., at 507. As a result, the plurality agreed that “the consent was tainted by the illegality and was ineffective to justify the search.” Id., at 507-508. Concurring in the result, Justice Brennan agreed with this much of the plurality’s decision, diverging on other grounds. See id., at 509. Justice Brennan’s agreement on that narrow principle represents the holding of the Court. See Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188, 193 (1977).

       Indeed, we indicated in Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, 437 (1991), that the fact a defendant had been explicitly advised that he could refuse to give consent was relevant to the question whether he was seized at the time consent was sought. And, in other cases, we have stressed the importance of similar advice as a circumstance supporting the conclusion that a consent to search was voluntary. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 227 (1973); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 558-559 (1980). Cf. Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U. S. 1, 9 (1982) (consent to search was voluntary where defendant “consented, in writing, . . . after being advised that his consent must be voluntary and that he had an absolute right to refuse consent”). Americans For

       As we are informed by a brief amicus curiae filed by Americans For Effective Law Enforcement, Inc.: “Such a warning may be good police practice, and indeed amicus knows that many law enforcement agencies among our constituents have routinely incorporated a warning into their Fourth Amendment consent forms that they use in the field, but it is precisely that — a practice and not a constitutional imperative. An officer who includes such a warning in his request for consent undoubtedly presents a stronger case for a finding of voluntariness in a suppression hearing, and we would not suggest that such agencies and officers do otherwise. We know, too, that instructors in many police training programs of leading universities and management institutes routinely recommend such warnings as a sound practice, likely to bolster the voluntariness of a consent to search. [We ourselves] conduc[t] law enforcement training programs at the national level and many of our own speakers have made this very point.” Brief for Americans For Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 1.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITED STATES et al. v. JOSE, trustee of JOSE BUSINESS TRUST et al.
    No. 95-2082.
    Decided December 2, 1996
   Per Curiam.

Petitioners, the United States of America and Leslie M. Nishimura, Revenue Agent of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or Service), commenced a proceeding to enforce two IRS summonses issued to Laddie F. Jose, as trustee for the Jose Business Trust and Jose Family Trust. The Service represented to the Magistrate that the documents sought “are for the purpose of a civil investigation.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 16a. The Magistrate found the summonses valid and enforceable for the purpose stated. He did not address the question whether the summons enforcement requirements “would be satisfied in the event petitioners decide to pursue a criminal tax investigation.” Ibid. That question was not before him in view of the sole purpose — civil investigation — specified by the IRS. Ibid.

The Magistrate recommended that the District Court (1) enforce petitioners’ summonses, and (2) require the IRS to give respondent five days’ notice prior to any circulation or transfer of the summoned documents to any division of the IRS other than the Examination Division. Id., at 20a-21a.

Before the District Court, neither party objected to the finding that the alleged civil investigation was a legitimate purpose and that the summonses are valid and should be enforced. Id., at 16a. The single issue in controversy was “whether [the court] may restrict enforcement of petitioners’ summonses by requiring the IRS to notify respondent five days in advance before circulating, transferring, or copying the summoned] documents to any other division of the IRS, including its [Criminal Investigation Division.” Id., at 15a. The District Court determined that the restriction was lawful and proper and entered a final order to that effect. Id., at 19a.

The Service appealed, asserting that the District Court lacked authority to impose the restriction. The Ninth Circuit correctly recognized that it had jurisdiction “pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1291,” which authorizes appeals from “final decisions.” It nonetheless dismissed the appeal “as not ripe.” 71 F. 3d 1484, 1485 (1995). The majority stated:

“The record indicates that the IRS represented to the district court that the documents requested of Jose were for civil tax examination purposes only, not for a criminal investigation. The record does not indicate that the Examination Division has attempted to disclose the documents to any other IRS division, thereby triggering the five-day notice requirement. Thus, any detrimental impact the district court’s order may have on the IRS’s investigation is, at this time, purely speculative. Accordingly, the IRS’s appeal is not ripe for review.” Ibid.

The dissenting judge concluded that the case was “ready and ripe” for decision, id., at 1486, and stated at some length her reasons for believing that the restriction approved by the District Court was unwarranted. The United States and Revenue Agent Nishimura petitioned for certiorari. We called for a response from trustee Jose, but he filed no brief in opposition. We now reverse.

We express no opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. The matter, indeed, is one that implicates an inter-circuit conflict. We think it clear, however, that the District Court's final order is indeed finaL It is a decision dis-positively granting in part and denying in part the remedy requested. The IRS prevailed to the extent that the District Court enforced the summonses. The Service did not prevail to the extent that the District Court imposed a condition — an unqualified requirement that the IRS provide five days’ notice to the trustee before transferring summoned information from its Examination Division to any other IRS office. With that disposition, the District Court completed its adjudication. “[W]e have expressly held that IRS summons enforcement orders are subject to appellate review.” Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U. S. 9, 15 (1992) (citing Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U. S. 440, 449 (1964)). We adhere to that view, and note that appellate jurisdiction over final decisions does not turn on which side prevailed in the District Court.

Finality, not ripeness, is the doctrine governing appeals from district court to court of appeals. In this case, to gain access to appeal from the District Court’s final decision to the extent that it disfavored the Service, the IRS is not obligated, first, to defy the District Court’s order. Nor is the IRS required to provide notice of its intention to transfer documents internally, for this is the very condition the IRS seeks to attack on appeal.

The Court of Appeals cited no authority supporting its cryptic declaration that the conditional enforcement order was not ripe for appeal. We have found none. Indeed, prior to this case, the Ninth Circuit itself had twice upheld similar conditional enforcement orders. See United States v. Zolin, 809 F. 2d 1411, 1417 (CA9 1987); United States v. Author Servs., Inc., 804 F. 2d 1520, 1525-1526 (CA9 1986). In neither ease did the Court of Appeals avoid the merits by interjecting the doctrine of ripeness. Aggrieved by the conditional enforcement upheld in Zolin, the United States petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari. We granted the writ, 488 U. S. 907 (1988), and affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling by an equally divided Court, 491 U. S. 554, 561 (1989). We hardly would have done so had we considered the matter unfit for review.

For the reasons stated, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, reverse the Ninth Circuit’s judgment dismissing the appeal, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ordered.

It is so ordered.

      Compare United States v. Barrett, 837 F. 2d 1341, 1349-1351 (CA5 1988) (en banc) (per curiam,) (District Court lacks authority to place conditions on enforcement of IRS summons), cert. denied, 492 U. S. 926 (1989), with United States v. Zolin, 809 F. 2d 1411, 1417 (CA9 1987) (upholding conditions on enforcement of IRS summons), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 491 U. S. 554, 561 (1989), and United States v. Author Servs., Inc., 804 F. 2d 1520, 1525-1526 (CA9 1986) (District Court has “considerable” discretion to set terms of enforcement order); see also Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U. S. 9, 14-15, n. 7 (1992) (recognizing split). The existing intercircuit conflict concerns judicial limitations on disclosure by the agency seeking summons enforcement to other governmental agencies. The instant case involves the related but distinct question of the District Court’s authority to restrict sharing of information within an agency.


author: Per Curiam. Justice Stevens,

text:
    IN RE GAYDOS
    No. 96-5831.
    Decided December 2, 1996
   Per Curiam.

Pro se petitioner Maria L. Gaydos seeks leave to proceed informa pauperis and requests this Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering (1) the Clerk of the District Court for the District of New Jersey to file her Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit challenging this Court’s orders in 10 previous cases in which Gaydos was denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court’s Rule 39.8; (2) the disqualification of William T. Walsh, Clerk of the District Court, and William K. Suter, Clerk of this Court; and (3) the issuance of summons under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. In the alternative, she asks this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction over her FOIA suit because her complaint concerns this Court’s orders.

We deny petitioner’s requests. Petitioner is allowed until December 23, 1996, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1. For the reasons discussed below, we direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for certiorari or for extraordinary writs in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless she first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.

Petitioner has a history of frivolous, repetitive filings. She has been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis 10 times, and she has filed at least 8 other petitions. This most recent petition is nearly incomprehensible, and alludes to, among other things, fraud by the staff of this Court and impending impeachment proceedings against Clerks Walsh and Suter in the House of Representatives. We also note that the relief she purports to seek has already been granted: The District Court docketed petitioner’s FOIA complaint as Case No. 96-CV-42435 on September 9, 1996, and promptly dismissed it “in its entirety” the following week.

We enter the order barring future in forma pauperis filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992). Because petitioner has limited her abuse of our processes to nonerimi-nal cases, we limit our sanction accordingly.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For reasons previously stated, see Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1, 4 (1992), and cases cited, I respectfully dissent.

      Rule 39.8 provides: “If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ... is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”


author: Justice Ginsburg

text:
    CATERPILLAR INC. v. LEWIS
    No. 95-1263.
    Argued November 12, 1996
    Decided December 10, 1996

      Kenneth S. Getter argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Michael R. Feagley, John E. Muench, Charles Rothfeld, Leslie W. Morris II, James B. Buda, and William F. Maready.

      Leonard, J. Stayton argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Paul Alan Levy and Alan B. Morrison

        Patrick W. Lee filed a brief for the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., as amicus curiae urging reversal.

   Justice Ginsburg

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case, commenced in a state court, involves personal injury claims arising under state law. The case was removed to a federal court at a time when, the Court of Appeals concluded, complete diversity of citizenship did not exist among the parties. Promptly after the removal, the plaintiff moved to remand the case to the state court, but the District Court denied that motion. Before trial of the case, however, all claims involving the nondiverse defendant were settled, and that defendant was dismissed as a. party to the action. Complete diversity thereafter existed. The case proceeded to trial, jury verdict, and judgment for the removing defendant. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, concluding that, absent complete diversity at the time of removal, the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. of

The question presented is whether the absence of complete diversity at the time of removal is fatal to federal-court adjudication. We hold that a district court’s error in failing to remand a case improperly removed is not fatal to the ensuing adjudication if federal jurisdictional requirements are met at the time judgment is entered.

I

Respondent James David Lewis, a resident of Kentucky, filed this lawsuit in Kentucky state court on June 22, 1989, after sustaining injuries while operating a bulldozer. Asserting state-law claims based on defective manufacture, negligent maintenance, failure to warn, and breach of warranty, Lewis named as defendants both the manufacturer of the bulldozer — petitioner Caterpillar Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois — and the company that serviced the bulldozer — Whayne Supply Company, a Kentucky corporation with its principal place of business in Kentucky.

Several months later, Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, the insurance carrier for Lewis’ employer, intervened in the lawsuit as a plaintiff. A Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in that State, Liberty Mutual asserted subrogation claims against both Caterpillar and Whayne Supply for workers’ compensation benefits Liberty Mutual had paid to Lewis on behalf of his employer.

Lewis entered into a settlement agreement with defendant Whayne Supply less than a year after filing his complaint. Shortly after learning of this agreement, Caterpillar filed a notice of removal, on June 21,1990, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Grounding federal jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship, see 28 U. S. C. § 1332, Caterpillar satisfied with only a day to spare the statutory requirement that a diversity-based removal take place within one year of a lawsuit’s commencement, see 28 U. S. C. § 1446(b). Caterpillar’s notice of removal explained that the case was nonremovable at the lawsuit’s start: Complete diversity was absent then because plaintiff Lewis and defendant Whayne Supply shared Kentucky citizenship. App. 31. Proceeding on the understanding that the settlement agreement between these two Kentucky parties would result in the dismissal of Whayne Supply from the lawsuit, Caterpillar stated that the settlement rendered the case removable. Id., at 31-32.

Lewis objected to the removal and moved to remand the case to state court. Lewis acknowledged that he had settled his own claims against Whayne Supply. But Liberty Mutual had not yet settled its subrogation claim against Whayne Supply, Lewis asserted. Whayne Supply’s presence as a defendant in the lawsuit, Lewis urged, defeated diversity of citizenship. Id., at 36. Without addressing this argument, the District Court denied Lewis' motion to remand on September 24, 1990, treating as dispositive Lewis’ admission that he had settled his own claims against Whayne Supply. Id., at 55.

Discovery, begun in state court, continued in the now federal lawsuit, and the parties filed pretrial conference papers beginning in July 1991. In June 1993, plaintiff Liberty Mutual and defendant Whayne Supply entered into a settlement of Liberty Mutual’s subrogation claim, and the District Court dismissed Whayne Supply from the lawsuit. With Caterpillar as the sole defendant adverse to Lewis, the case proceeded to a six-day jury trial in November 1993, ending in a unanimous verdict for Caterpillar. The District Court entered judgment for Caterpillar on November 23, 1993, and denied Lewis’ motion for a new trial on February 1, 1994.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit accepted Lewis’ argument that, at the time of removal, Whayne Supply remained a defendant in the case due to Liberty Mutual’s subrogation claim against it. App. to Pet. for Cert. 8a. Because the party lineup, on removal, included Kentucky plaintiff Lewis and Kentucky defendant Whayne Supply, the Court of Appeals observed that diversity was not complete when Caterpillar took the case from state court to federal court. Id., at 8a-9a. Consequently, the Court of Appeals concluded, the District Court “erred in denying [Lewis’] motion to remand this case to the state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id., at 9a. That error, according to the Court of Appeals, made it necessary to vacate the District Court’s judgment. Ibid.

Caterpillar petitioned for this Court’s review. Caterpillar stressed that the nondiverse defendant, Whayne Supply, had been dismissed from the lawsuit prior to trial. It was therefore improper, Caterpillar urged, for the Court of Appeals to vacate the District Court’s judgment — entered after several years of litigation and a six-day trial — on account of a jurisdictional defect cured, all agreed, by the time of trial and judgment. Pet. for Cert. 8. We granted certiorari, 517 U. S. 1133 (1996), and now reverse.

II

The Constitution provides, in Article III, §2, that “[t]he judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend ... to Controversies . . . between Citizens of different States.” Commencing with the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 11, 1 Stat. 78, Congress has constantly authorized the federal courts to exercise jurisdiction based on the diverse citizenship of parties. In Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806), this Court construed the original Judiciary Act’s diversity provision to require complete diversity of citizenship. Id., at 267. We have adhered to that statutory interpretation ever since. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U. S. 185, 187 (1990). The current general-diversity statute, permitting federal district court jurisdiction over suits for more than $50,000 “between . . . citizens of different States,” 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a), thus applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.

When a plaintiff files in state court a civil action over which the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, the defendant or defendants may remove the action to federal court, 28 U. S. C. § 1441(a), provided that no defendant “is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought,” § 1441(b). In a case not originally removable, a defendant who receives a pleading or other paper indicating the postcommencement satisfaction of federal jurisdictional requirements — for example, by reason of the dismissal of a nondiverse party — may remove the case to federal court within 30 days of receiving such information. § 1446(b). No case, however, may be removed from state to federal court based on diversity of citizenship “more than 1 year after commencement of the action.” Ibid.

Once a defendant has filed a notice of removal in the federal district court, a plaintiff objecting to removal “on the basis of any defect in removal procedure” may, within 30 days, file a motion asking the district court to remand the case to state court. § 1447(c). This 30-day limit does not apply, however, to jurisdictional defects: “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” Ibid.

I — l I — < H-I

We note, initially, two givens in this case as we have accepted it for review. First, the District Court, in its decision denying Lewis’ timely motion to remand, incorrectly treated Whayne Supply, the nondiverse defendant, as effectively dropped from the case prior to removal. See App. 55. Second, the Sixth Circuit correctly determined that the complete diversity requirement was not satisfied at the time of removal. App. to Pet. for Cert. 8a-9a. We accordingly home in on this- question: Does the District Court’s initial misjudgment still burden and run with the case, or is it overcome by the eventual dismissal of the nondiverse defendant? decisions in

come Petitioner Caterpillar relies heavily on our decisions in American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S. 6 (1951), and Grubbs v. General Elec. Credit Corp., 405 U. S. 699 (1972), urging that these decisions “long ago settled the proposition that remand to the state court is unnecessary even if jurisdiction did not exist at the time of removal, so long as the district court had subject matter jurisdiction at the time of judgment.” Brief for Petitioner 8-9. Caterpillar is right that Finn and Grubbs are key cases in point and tend in Caterpillar’s favor. Each suggests that the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction at time of judgment may shield a judgment against later jurisdictional attack. But neither decision resolves dispositively a controversy of the kind we face, for neither involved a plaintiff who moved promptly, but unsuccessfully, to remand a case improperly removed from state court to federal court, and then challenged on appeal a judgment entered by the federal court.

In Finn, two defendants removed a case to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. 341 U. S., at 7-8. Eventually, final judgment was entered for the plaintiff against one of the removing defendants. Id., at 8. The losing defendant urged on appeal, and before this Court, that the judgment could not stand because the requisite diversity jurisdiction, it turned out, existed neither at the time of removal nor at the time of judgment. Agreeing with the defendant, we held that the absence of federal jurisdiction at the time of judgment required the Court of Appeals to vacate the District Court’s judgment. Id., at 17-18.

Finn's holding does not speak to the situation here, where the requirement of complete diversity was satisfied at the time of judgment. But Caterpillar points to well-known dicta in Finn more helpful to its cause. “There are cases,” the Court observed, “which uphold judgments in the district courts even though there was no right to removal.” Id., at 16. “In those cases,” the Finn Court explained, “the federal trial court would have had original jurisdiction of the controversy had it been brought in the federal court in the posture it had at the time of the actual trial of the cause or of the entry of the judgment.” Ibid.

The discussion in Finn concentrated on cases in which courts held removing defendants estopped from challenging final judgments on the basis of removal errors. See id., at 17. The Finn Court did not address the situation of a plaintiff such as Lewis, who chose a state court as the forum for his lawsuit, timely objected to removal before the District Court, and then challenged the removal on appeal from an adverse judgment.

In Grubbs, a civil action filed in state court was removed to federal court on the petition of the United States, which had been named as a party defendant in a “cross-action” filed by the original defendant. 405 U. S., at 700-701; see 28 U. S. C. § 1444 (authorizing removal of actions brought against the United States, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2410, with respect to property on which the United States has or claims a lien). No party objected to the removal before trial or judgment. See Grubbs, 405 U. S., at 701. The Court of Appeals nonetheless held, on its own motion, that the “inter-pleader” of the United States was spurious, and that removal had therefore been improper under 28 U. S. C. § 1444. See Grubbs, 405 U. S., at 702. On this basis, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s judgment should be vacated and the case remanded to state court. See ibid.

This Court reversed. Id., at 700. We explained:

“Longstanding decisions of this Court make clear . . . that where after removal a case is tried on the merits without objection and the federal court enters judgment, the issue in subsequent proceedings on appeal is not whether the case was properly removed, but whether the federal district court would have had original jurisdiction of the case had it been filed in that court.” Id., at 702.

We concluded that, “whether or not the case was properly removed, the District Court did have jurisdiction of the parties at the time it entered judgment.” Id., at 700. “Under such circumstances,” we held, “the validity of the removal procedure followed may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Grubbs instructs that an erroneous removal need not cause the destruction of a final judgment, if the requirements of federal subject-matter jurisdiction are met at the time the judgment is entered. Grubbs, however, dealt with a case removed without objection. The decision is not dispositive of the question whether a plaintiff, who timely objects to removal, may later successfully challenge an adverse judgment on the ground that the removal did not comply with statutory prescriptions.

Beyond question, as Lewis acknowledges, there was in this case complete diversity, and therefore federal subject-matter jurisdiction, at the time of trial and judgment. See Brief for Respondent 18-19 (diversity became complete “when Liberty Mutual settled its subrogation claim with Whayne Supply and the latter was formally dismissed from the case”). The case had by then become, essentially, a two-party lawsuit: Lewis, a citizen of Kentucky, was the sole plaintiff; Caterpillar, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Illinois, was the sole defendant Lewis confronted. Caterpillar maintains that this change cured the threshold statutory misstep, i. e., the removal of a case when diversity was incomplete. Brief for Petitioner 7,13.

Caterpillar moves too quickly over the terrain we must cover. The jurisdictional defect was cured, i. e., complete diversity was established before the trial commenced. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit erred in resting its decision on the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction. But a statutory flaw — Caterpillar’s failure to meet the § 1441(a) requirement that the case be fit for federal adjudication at the time the removal petition is filed — remained in the unerasable history of the case.

And Lewis, by timely moving for remand, did all that was required to preserve his objection to removal. An order denying a motion to remand, “standing alone,” is “[o]bviously . . . not final and [immediately] appealable” as of right. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U. S. 574, 578 (1954). Nor is a plaintiff required to seek permission to take an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b) in order to avoid waiving whatever ultimate appeal right he may have. Indeed, if a party had to invoke § 1292(b) in order to preserve an objection to an interlocutory ruling, litigants would be obliged to seek § 1292(b) certifications constantly. Routine resort to § 1292(b) requests would hardly comport with Congress’ design to reserve interlocutory review for “ ‘exceptional’ ” cases while generally retaining for the federal courts a firm final judgment rule. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 475 (1978) (quoting Fisons, Ltd. v. United States, 458 F. 2d 1241, 1248 (CA7), cert. denied, 405 U. S. 1041 (1972)).

Having preserved his objection to an improper removal, Lewis urges that an “all’s well that ends well” approach is inappropriate here. He maintains that ultimate satisfaction of the subject-matter jurisdiction requirement ought not swallow up antecedent statutory violations. The course Caterpillar advocates, Lewis observes, would disfavor diligent plaintiffs who timely, but unsuccessfully, move to check improper removals in district court. Further, that course would allow improperly removing defendants to profit from their disregard of Congress’ instructions, and their ability to lead district judges into error.

Concretely, in this very case, Lewis emphasizes, adherence to the rules Congress prescribed for removal would have kept the case in state court. Only by removing prematurely was Caterpillar able to get to federal court inside the one-year limitation set in § 1446(b). Had Caterpillar waited until the case was ripe for removal, i. e., until Whayne Supply was dismissed as a defendant, the one-year limitation would have barred the way, and plaintiff’s choice of forum would have been preserved.

These arguments are hardly meritless, but they run up against an overriding consideration. Once a diversity case has been tried in federal court, with rules of decision supplied by state law under the regime of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938), considerations of finality, efficiency, and economy become overwhelming.

Our decision in Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U. S. 826 (1989), is instructive in this regard. Newman-Green did not involve removal, but it did involve the federal courts’ diversity jurisdiction and a party defendant whose presence, like Whayne Supply’s in this case, blocked complete ' diversity. Newman-Green proceeded to summary judgment with the jurisdictional flaw — the absence of complete diversity — undetected. See id., at 828-829. The Court of Appeals noticed the flaw, invited the parties to address it, and, en banc, returned the case to the District Court “to determine whether it would be prudent to drop [the jurisdiction spoiler] from the litigation.” Id., at 830. We held that the Court of Appeals itself had authority “to dismiss a dispensable nondiverse party,” although we recognized that, ordinarily, district courts are better positioned to make such judgments. Id., at 837-838., “[Requiring dismissal after years of litigation,” the Court stressed in Newman-Green, “would impose unnecessary and wasteful burdens on the parties, judges, and other litigants waiting for judicial attention.” Id., at 836. The same may be said of the remand to state court Lewis seeks here. Cf. Knop v. McMahan, 872 F. 2d 1132, 1139, n. 16 (CA3 1989) (“To permit a case in which there is complete diversity throughout trial to proceed to judgment and then cancel the effect of that judgment and relegate the parties to a new trial in a state court because of a brief lack of complete diversity at the beginning of the case would be a waste of judicial resources.”).

Our view is in harmony with a main theme of the removal scheme Congress devised. Congress ordered a procedure calling for expeditious superintendence by district courts. The lawmakers specified a short time, 30 days, for motions to remand for defects in removal procedure, 28 U. S. C. § 1447(c), and district court orders remanding cases to state courts generally are “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise,” § 1447(d). Congress did not similarly exclude appellate review of refusals to remand. But an evident concern that may explain the lack of symmetry relates to the federal courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction. Despite -a federal trial court’s threshold denial of a motion to remand, if, at the end of the day and case, a jurisdictional defect remains uncured, the judgment must be vacated. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”); Finn, 341 U. S., at 18. In this case, however, no jurisdictional defect lingered through judgment in the District Court. To wipe out the adjudication postjudgment, and return to state court a case now satisfying all federal jurisdictional requirements, would impose an exorbitant cost on our dual court system, a cost incompatible with the fair and unprotracted administration of justice.

Lewis ultimately argues that, if the final judgment against him is allowed to stand, “all of the various procedural requirements for removal will become unenforceable”; therefore, “defendants will have an enormous incentive to attempt wrongful removals.” Brief for Respondent 9. In particular, Lewis suggests that defendants will remove prematurely “in the hope that some subsequent developments, such as the eventual dismissal of nondiverse defendants, will permit th[e] case to be kept in federal court.” Id., at 21. We do not anticipate the dire consequences Lewis forecasts.

The procedural requirements for removal remain enforceable by the federal trial court judges to whom those requirements are directly addressed. Lewis’ prediction that rejection of his petition will “encourag[e] state court defendants to remove cases improperly,” id., at 19, rests on an assumption we do not indulge — that district courts generally will not comprehend, or will balk at applying, the rules on removal Congress has prescribed. The prediction furthermore assumes defendants’ readiness to gamble that any jurisdictional defect, for example, the absence of complete diversity, will first escape detection, then disappear prior to judgment. The well-advised defendant, we are satisfied, will foresee the likely outcome of an unwarranted removal— a swift and nonreviewable remand order, see 28 U. S. C. . §§ 1447(c), (d), attended by the displeasure of a district court whose authority has been improperly invoked. The odds against any gain from a wrongful removal, in sum, render improbable Lewis’ projection of increased resort to the maneuver.

* *

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       In accord with 28 U. S. C. § 1367 and Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Caterpillar, after removing the case to federal court, impleaded Lewis’ employer, Gene Wilson Enterprises, a Kentucky corporation, as a third-party defendant. See App. 2. Gene Wilson Enterprises, so far as the record shows, remained a named third-party defendant, adverse solely to third-party plaintiff Caterpillar, through judgment. See Brief for Respondent 5. No dispute ran between Lewis and his employer, and Caterpillar’s third-party complaint against Gene Wilson Enterprises had no bearing on the authority of the federal court to adjudicate the diversity claims Lewis asserted against Caterpillar. See, e. g., Wichita Railroad & Light Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Kan., 260 U. S. 48, 54 (1922) (federal jurisdiction once acquired on the ground of complete diversity of citizenship is unaffected by the subsequent intervention “of a party whose presence is not essential to a- decision of the controversy between the original parties”). As elaborated in 3 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 14.26, p. 14-116 (2d ed. 1996) (footnotes omitted): “Once federal subject matter jurisdiction is established over the underlying case between [plaintiff] and [defendant], the jurisdictional propriety of each additional claim is to be assessed individually. Thus, assuming that jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship between [plaintiff] and [defendant], the question concerning impleader is whether there is a jurisdictional basis for the claim by [defendant] against [third-party defendant]. The fact that [plaintiff] and [third-party defendant] may be co-citizens is completely irrelevant. Unless [plaintiff] chooses to amend his complaint to assert a claim against [third-party defendant], [plaintiff] and [third-party defendant] are simply not adverse, and there need be no basis of jurisdiction between them.”

       Because the Court of Appeals held the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the case, it did not reach several other issues Lewis raised on appeal. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a, 9a, n. 3.

       This “complete diversity” interpretation of the general-diversity provision is a matter of statutory construction. “Article III poses no obstacle to the legislative extension of federal jurisdiction, founded on diversity, so long as any two adverse parties are not co-citizens.” State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U. S. 523, 531 (1967).

       In relevant part, 28 U. S. C. § 1441 provides:
      In “(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. For purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.
      “(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”

       In full, 28 U. S. C. § 1446(b) provides:
      “The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within thirty days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.
      “If the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable, except that a case may not be removed on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 of this title more than 1 year after commencement of the action.”

       In relevant part, 28 U. S. C. § 1447(e) provides:
      “A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect in removal procedure must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. . . . The State court may thereupon proceed with such case.”

       Caterpillar’s subrogation claim asserted by Liberty Mutual, and thus the citizenship of Whayne Supply, should be disregarded for purposes of determining diversity of citizenship, in view of the settlement agreed upon between Lewis and Whayne Supply. See Pet. for Cert, i, 18-23. Our order granting review did not encompass that question, see 517 U. S. 1133 (1996), and we express no opinion on it.

       The Court left open in Finn the question whether, on remand to the District Court, “a new judgment [could] be entered on the old verdict without a new trial” if the nondiverse defendant were dismissed from the case. 341 U. S., at 18, n. 18. In the litigation’s second round, the District Court allowed the plaintiff to dismiss all claims against the nondiverse defendant. See Finn v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 207 F. 2d 113, 114 (CA5 1953), cert. denied, 347 U. S. 912 (1954). Thereafter, the District Court granted a new trial, on the assumption that the original judgment could not stand for lack of jurisdiction. See 207 F. 2d, at 114. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit set aside the judgment entered after the second trial and ordered the original judgment reinstated. Id., at 117.

       The Court cited Baggs v. Martin, 179 U. S. 206 (1900), and three lower federal-court cases. Finn, 341 U. S., at 16, n. 14.

       Section 1292(b) provides for interlocutory appeals from otherwise not immediately appealable orders, if conditions specified in the section are met, the district court so certifies, and the court of appeals exercises its discretion to take up the request for revihis

       On brief, Caterpillar argued that “Lewis effectively waived his objection to removal by failing to seek an immediate appeal of the district court’s refusal to remand.” Brief for Petitioner 13. We reject this waiver argument, though we recognize that it has attracted some support in Court of Appeals opinions. See, e. g., Able v. Upjohn Co., 829 F. 2d 1330, 1333-1334 (CA4 1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 963 (1988).

       Congress amended § 1446(b) in 1988 to include the one-year limitation in oi’der to “reducfe] the opportunity for removal after substantial progress has been made in state'court.” H. R. Rep. No. 100-889, p. 72 (1988).

       On appeal, Lewis raised only the absence of diversity. He did not refer to the one-year limitation prior to his brief on the merits in this Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 17, 30-81. Under this Court’s Rule 15.2, a nonjurisdictional argument not raised in a respondent’s brief in opposition to a petition for a writ of certiorari “may be deemed waived.” Under the facts of this case, however, addressing the implications of § 1446(b)’s one-year limitation is “ ‘predicate to an intelligent resolution’ of the question presented.” Ohio v. Robinette, ante, at 38 (quoting Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252, 258-259, n. 5 (1980)). We therefore regard the issue as one “fairly included” within the question presented. This Court’s Rule 14.1. The parties addressed the issue in their briefs and at oral argument, and we exercise our discretion to decide it.

       Lewis preferred state court to federal court based on differences he perceived in, inter alia, the state and federal jury systems and rules of evidence. See Brief for Respondent 22-23.