author: Justice Rehnquist Justice Blackmun,

text:
    UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS v. AIKENS
    No. 81-1044.
    Argued November 9, 1982
    Decided April 4, 1983

      Rehnquist, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Blackmun, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Brennan, J., joined, post, p. 717. Marshall, J., concurred in the judgment.

      Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General McGrath, and Marleigh D. Dover.

      Jack Greenberg argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were L. Harold Aikens, Jr., James M. NabritHI, Charles Stephen Ralston, Clyde E. Murphy, Gail J. Wright, and Barry L. Goldstein.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Stephen A. Bokat for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States; and by Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, and Edward E. Potter for the Equal Employment Advisory Council.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Joan E. Bertin, Mary L. Heen, E. Richard Larson, and Isabelle Katz Pinzler for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.; and by James E. Daniels, Paul A. Crotty, and Phyllis N. Segal for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund et al.

        J. Albert Woll, Robert M. Weinberg, Michael H. Gottesman, and Laurence Gold filed a brief for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations as amicus curiae.

   Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Louis Aikens filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., claiming that the United States Postal Service discriminated against him on account of his race. Aikens, who is black, claimed that the Postal Service had discriminatorily refused to promote him to higher positions in the Washington, D. C., Post Office where he had been employed since 1937. After a bench trial, the District Court entered judgment in favor of the Postal Service, but the Court of Appeals reversed. 206 U. S. App. D. C. 109, 642 F. 2d 514 (1980). We vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248 (1981). 453 U. S. 902 (1981).

On remand, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its earlier holding that the District Court had erred in requiring Aikens to offer direct proof of discriminatory intent. It also held that the District Court erred in requiring Aikens to show, as part of his prima facie case, that he was “as qualified or more qualified” than the people who were promoted. 214 U. S. App. D. C. 239, 240, 241, 665 F. 2d 1057, 1058, 1059 (1981) (per curiam). We granted certiorari. 455 U. S. 1015 (1982).

The Postal Service argues that an employee who has shown only that he was black, that he applied for a promotion for which he possessed the minimum qualifications, and that the employer selected a nonminority applicant has not established a “prima facie” case of employment discrimination under Title VII. Aikens argues that he submitted sufficient evidence that the Postal Service discriminated against him to warrant a finding of a prima facie case. Because this case was fully tried on the merits, it is surprising to find the parties and the Court of Appeals still addressing the question whether Aikens made out a prima facie case. We think that by framing the issue in these terms, they have unnecessarily evaded the ultimate question of discrimination vel non.

By establishing a prima facie case, the plaintiff in a Title VII action creates a rebuttable “presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against” him. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, supra, at 254. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973). To rebut this presumption, “the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection.” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 255. In other words, the defendant must “product] evidence that the plaintiff was rejected, or someone else was preferred, for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” Id., at 254.

But when the defendant fails to persuade the district court to dismiss the action for lack of a prima facie case, and responds to the plaintiff’s proof by offering evidence of the reason for the plaintiff’s rejection, the factfinder must then decide whether the rejection was discriminatory within the meaning of Title VII. At this stage, the McDonnell-Bur-dine presumption “drops from the case,” 450 U. S., at 255, n. 10, and “the factual inquiry proceeds to a new level of specificity.” Id., at 255. After Aikens presented his evidence to the District Court in this case, the Postal Service’s witnesses testified that he was not promoted because he had turned down several lateral transfers that would have broadened his Postal Service experience. See Tr. 311-313, 318-320, 325; App. to Pet. for Cert. 53a. The District Court was then in a position to decide the ultimate factual issue in the case.

The “factual inquiry” in a Title VII case is “[whether] the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.” Burdine, supra, at 253. In other words, is “the employer . . . treating ‘some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’” Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567, 577 (1978), quoting Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 335, n. 15 (1977). The prima facie case method established in McDonnell Douglas was “never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic. Rather, it is merely a sensible, orderly way to evaluate the evidence in light of common experience as it bears on the critical question of discrimination.” Furnco, supra, at 577. Where the defendant has done everything that would be required of him if the plaintiff had properly made out a prima facie case, whether the plaintiff really did so is no longer relevant. The district court has before it all the evidence it needs to decide whether “the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.” Burdine, supra, at 253.

On the state of the record at the close of the evidence, the District Court in this case should have proceeded to this specific question directly, just as district courts decide disputed questions of fact in other civil litigation. As we stated in Burdine:

“The plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion. . . . [H]e may succeed in this either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” 450 U. S., at 256.

In short, the district court must decide which party’s explanation of the employer’s motivation it believes.

All courts have recognized that the question facing triers of fact in discrimination cases is both sensitive and difficult. The prohibitions against discrimination contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reflect an important national policy. There will seldom be “eyewitness” testimony as to the employer’s mental processes. But none of this means that trial courts or reviewing courts should treat discrimination differently from other ultimate questions of fact. Nor should they make their inquiry even more difficult by applying legal rules which were devised to govern “the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof,” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 252, in deciding this ultimate question. The law often obliges finders of fact to inquire into a person’s state of mind. As Lord Justice Bowen said in treating this problem in an action for misrepresentation nearly a century ago:

“The state of a man’s mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion. It is true that it is very difficult to prove what the state of a man’s mind at a particular time is, but if it can be ascertained it is as much a fact as anything else.” Edgington v. Fitzmaurice, 29 Ch. Div. 459, 483 (1885).

The District Court erroneously thought that respondent was required to submit direct evidence of discriminatory intent, see n. 3, supra, and erroneously focused on the question of prima facie case rather than directly on the question of discrimination. Thus we cannot be certain that its findings of fact in favor of the Postal Service were not influenced by its mistaken view of the law. We accordingly vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the District Court so that it may decide on the basis of the evidence before it whether the Postal Service discriminated against Aikens.

It is so ordered.

Justice Marshall concurs in the judgment.

Justice Blackmun,

with whom Justice Brennan joins, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion. I write to stress the fact, however, that, as I read its opinion, the Court today reaffirms the framework established by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), for Title VII cases. Under that framework, once a Title VII plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and the defendant-employer has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the reason is pretextual, that is, it is “not the true reason for the employment decision.” Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 256 (1981). As the Court’s opinion today implies, ante, at 714-715, this burden “merges with the ultimate burden of persuading the court that [the plaintiff] has been the victim of intentional discrimination.” 450 U. S., at 256.

This ultimate burden may be met in one of two ways. First, as the Court notes, a plaintiff may persuade the court that the employment decision more likely than not was motivated by a discriminatory reason. Ante, at 714, 716, and 717. In addition, however, this burden is also carried if the plaintiff shows “that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 256, citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U. S., at 804-805. While the Court is correct that the ultimate determination of factual liability in discrimination cases should be no different from that in other types of civil suits, ante, at 716, the McDonnell Douglas framework requires that a plaintiff prevail when at the third stage of a Title VII trial he demonstrates that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason given by the employer is in fact not the true reason for the employment decision.

       We have consistently distinguished disparate-treatment cases from cases involving facially neutral employment standards that have disparate impact on minority applicants. See, e. g., Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 252, n. 5 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802, n. 14 (1973).

       Aikens showed that white persons were consistently promoted and detailed over him and all other black persons between 1966 and 1974. Aikens has been rated as “ ‘an outstanding supervisor whose management abilities were far above average.’ ” App. 8. There was no derogatory or negative information in his personnel folder. He had more supervisory seniority and training and development courses than all but one of the white persons who were promoted above him. He has a master’s degree and has completed three years of residence towards a Ph. D. Aikens had substantially more education than the white employees who were advanced ahead of him; of the 12, only 2 had any education beyond high school and none had a college degree. He introduced testimony that the person responsible for the promotion decisions at issue had made numerous derogatory comments about blacks in general and Aikens in particular. If the District Court were to find, on the basis of this evidence, that the Postal Service did discriminate against Aikens, we do not believe that this would be reversible error.

       As in any lawsuit, the plaintiff may prove his case by direct or circumstantial evidence. The trier of fact should consider all the evidence, giving it whatever weight and credence it deserves. Thus, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the District Court should not have required Aikens to submit direct evidence of discriminatory intent. See Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 358, n. 44 (1977) (“[T]he McDonnell Douglas formula does not require direct proof of discrimination”).

       It appears that at one point in the trial the District Court decided that Aikens had made out a prima facie case. When Aikens concluded his case in chief, the Postal Service moved to dismiss on the ground that there was no prima facie case. Tr. 256. The District Court denied this motion. Id., at 259. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 47a.

       Of course, the plaintiff must have an adequate “opportunity to demonstrate that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision,” but rather a pretext. Burdine, 460 U. S., at 256. There is no suggestion in this case that Aikens did not have such an opportunity.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Stevens

license: Public Domain

text:
    KUSH et al. v. RUTLEDGE
    No. 81-1675.
    Argued January 12, 1983
    Decided April 4, 1983

      Stevens, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Michael L. Gallagher argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Michael K. Kennedy.

      Robert Ong Hing argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

        Charles S. Sims filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.

   Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent is a white football player of unknown political affiliation who seeks to recover damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1985(2) (1976 ed., Supp. V) for an alleged conspiracy to intimidate potential witnesses in a federal lawsuit. Petitioners argue that the action must be dismissed because there is no claim that the conspiracy was motivated by the kind of “racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus” we held to be necessary in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S. 88, 102 (1971). We reject their contention, because the critical language in § 1985(3), the statute that applied to the Griffin conspiracy, does not apply to the violation of the first part of § 1985(2) alleged in this case.

The issue before us is narrow and may be briefly stated. In both federal and state tribunals, respondent Rutledge has asserted a variety of common-law and statutory claims against Arizona State University and its officials arising out of incidents that occurred while he was a member of the University’s football squad. One of his claims is that three of the petitioners — the Arizona State University athletic director, head football coach, and assistant football coach— engaged in a conspiracy to intimidate and threaten various potential material witnesses in order to prevent them from testifying “freely, fully and truthfully” in his lawsuit in federal court.

The District Court granted a motion to dismiss the entire complaint on the grounds that the action was barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that respondent had failed to allege a violation of his civil rights. It concluded that respondent had failed to state a §1985 claim because he had not shown that he was a member of an identifiable class, and because his general allegations of a conspiracy were unsupported by specific facts. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-2. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the University and its Board of Regents and of the vicarious liability claims against petitioner Miller, remanded for further proceedings on the other state-law tort claims against petitioners, and affirmed the dismissal of all federal civil rights claims against petitioners except the one at issue here. Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 660 F. 2d 1345 (CA9 1981).

The Court of Appeals construed respondent’s allegations of witness intimidation, see n. 1, supra, as containing two components — obstruction of justice at the state level, and interference with federal litigation. The former was not actionable under the second part of §1985(2), the court held, because “there exists no sufficient allegation of racial or class-based invidiously discriminatory animus.” 660 F. 2d, at 1355. The court acknowledged that this Court’s decision in Griffin v. Breckenridge, supra, had interpreted a portion of § 1985(3) to include such a requirement in order to avoid the constitutional issues that would have attended enactment of a general federal tort law. It decided that the same principles applied to claims based on private conspiracies to obstruct justice in state-court proceedings.

But the Court of Appeals concluded that no allegations of class-based animus were required under the first part of § 1985(2), which proscribes intimidation of witnesses in the federal courts. It relied on the plain language of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and on the legislative history. Noting the Federal Government’s unquestioned constitutional authority to protect the processes of its own courts, and the absence of any need to limit the first part of § 1985(2) to avoid creating a general federal tort law, the Court of Appeals declined to impose the limitation set forth in Griffin v. Breckenridqe. 660 F. 2d, at 1355.

Because other Circuits have read the first part of § 1985(2) more narrowly, see Kimble v. D. J. McDuffy, Inc., 648 F. 2d 340, 346-348 (CA5) (en banc), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 1110 (1981); Jones v. United States, 536 F. 2d 269, 271 (CA8 1976), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1039 (1977), we granted certiorari limited to the question of statutory construction, 458 U. S. 1120 (1982). As have the Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, McCord v. Bailey, 204 U. S. App. D. C. 334, 345, 636 F. 2d 606, 616 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U. S. 983 (1981), and the Third Circuit, Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F. 2d 830, 840 (1976), we agree with the Ninth Circuit’s analysis.

t — I I — I

The statutory provision that is now codified as § 1985 of Title 42 of the United States Code was originally enacted as §2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13. The length and style of § 2 of the 1871 Act, reprinted in full as an Appendix to this opinion, make it somewhat difficult to parse. Nevertheless, if its several components are carefully identified, its meaning becomes clear.

Although §2 contained only one long paragraph when it was originally enacted, that single paragraph outlawed five broad classes of conspiratorial activity. In general terms, §2 proscribed conspiracies that interfere with (a) the performance of official duties by federal officers; (b) the administration of justice in federal courts; (c) the administration of justice in state courts; (d) the private enjoyment of “equal protection of the laws” and “equal privileges and immunities under the laws”; and (e) the right to support candidates in federal elections. As now codified in § 1985, the long paragraph is divided into three subsections. One of the five classes of prohibited conspiracy is proscribed by § 1985(1), two by § 1985(2), and two by § 1985(3). The civil remedy for a violation of any of the subsections is found at the end of § 1985(3). The reclassification was not intended to change the substantive meaning of the 1871 Act.

Three of the five broad categories, the first two and the fifth, relate to institutions and processes of the Federal Government — federal officers, § 1985(1); federal judicial proceedings, the first portion of § 1985(2); and federal elections, the second part of § 1985(3). The statutory provisions dealing with these categories of conspiratorial activity contain no language requiring that the conspirators act with intent to deprive their victims of the equal protection of the laws. Nor was such language found in the corresponding portions of § 2 of the 1871 Act. See Appendix to this opinion.

The remaining two categories, however, encompass underlying activity that is not institutionally linked to federal interests and that is usually of primary state concern. The second part of § 1985(2) applies to conspiracies to obstruct the course of justice in state courts, and the first part of § 1985(3) provides a cause of action against two or more persons who “conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another.” Each of these portions of the statute contains language requiring that the conspirators’ actions be motivated by an intent to deprive their victims of the equal protection of the laws.

This limiting language was construed in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S. 88 (1971), a case in which a unanimous Court held that § 1985(3) applies to purely private conspiracies. In explaining why that holding would not create an open-ended federal tort law applicable “to all tortious, conspiratorial interferences with the rights of others,” id., at 101, we expressly stated:

“The language requiring intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities, means that there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action. The conspiracy, in other words, must aim at a deprivation of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the law to all.” Id., at 102.

Although Griffin itself arose under the first clause of § 1985(3), petitioners argue that its reasoning should be applied to the remaining portions of § 1985 as well. We cannot accept that argument for three reasons. First, the scope of the Griffin opinion is carefully confined to “the portion of § 1985 (3) now before us,” id., at 99; see also id., at 102, n. 9. There is no suggestion in the opinion that its reasoning applies to any other portion of § 1985. Second, the analysis in the Griffin opinion relied heavily on the fact that the sponsors of the 1871 bill added the “equal protection” language in response to objections that the “enormous sweep of the original language” vastly extended federal authority and displaced state control over private conduct. Id., at 99-100. That legislative background does not apply to the portions of the statute that prohibit interference with federal officers, federal courts, or federal elections. Third, and of greatest importance, the statutory language that provides the textual basis for the “class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus” requirement simply does not appear in the portion of the statute that applies to this case. See n. 4, supra.

Given the structure of § 2 of the 1871 Act, it is clear that Congress did not intend to impose a requirement of class-based animus on persons seeking to prove a violation of their rights under the first clause of §1985(2). The legislative history supports the conclusion we have drawn from the language of the statute. Protection of the processes of the federal courts was an essential component of Congress’ solution to disorder and anarchy in the Southern States. Neither proponents nor opponents of the bill had any doubt that the Constitution gave Congress the power to prohibit intimidation of parties, witnesses, and jurors in federal courts.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT

Section 2 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act, 17 Stat. 13 (emphasis supplied).

“That if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy war against the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office or trust or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging the duties thereof, or by force, intimidation, or threat to induce any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place where his duties as such officer might lawfully be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to injure his person while engaged in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duty, or by force, intimidation, or threat to deter any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying in any matter pending in such court fully, freely, and truthfully, or to injure any such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or by force, intimidation, or threat to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment, of any juror or grand juror in any court of the United States, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or shall conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway or upon the premises of another for the purpose, either directly or indirectly, of depriving any person or any class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State from giving or securing to all persons within such State the equal protection of the laws, or shall conspire together for the purpose of in any manner impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen of the United States the due and equal protection of the laws, or to injure any person in his person or his property for lawfully enforcing the right of any person or class of persons to the equal protection of the laws, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any citizen of the United States lawfully entitled to vote from giving his support or advocacy in a lawful manner towards or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector of President or Vice-President of the United States, or as a member of the Congress of the United States, or to injure any such citizen in his person or property on account of such support or advocacy, each and every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high crime, and, upon conviction thereof in any district or circuit court of the United States or district or supreme court of any Territory of the United States having jurisdiction of similar offences, shall be punished by a fine not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, as the court may determine, for a period of not less than six months nor more than six years, as the court may determine, or by both such fine and imprisonment as the court shall determine. And if any one or more persons engaged in any such conspiracy shall do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby any person shall be injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the person so injured or deprived of such rights and privileges may have and maintain an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation of rights and privileges against any one or more of the persons engaged in such conspiracy, such action to be prosecuted in the proper district or circuit court of the United States, with and subject to the same rights of appeal, review upon error, and other remedies provided in like cases in such courts under the provisions of the act of April ninth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, entitled ‘An act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and to furnish the means of their vindication.”’

       This is the essence of the § 1985(2) claim as described in the briefs and arguments in this Court. The Court of Appeals recognized that whether respondent had “adequately alleged a claim under the first part of section 1985(2) is a close question,” but decided it in the affirmative. Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 660 F. 2d 1345, 1355 (CA9 1981). Under the liberal pleading rules of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 47-48 (1957), the Court of Appeals properly construed the amended complaint as raising the issue presented to this Court on certiorari.
      Count Five of the amended complaint, which was added two days after the filing of the original complaint in United States District Court, does not expressly allege that witnesses were intimidated in connection with a federal-court proceeding. It alleges in part that:
      “56. On information and belief, since the time of filing the statutorily mandated claim with the Arizona Board of Regents, defendants Kush, Miller and Horton have conspired to prevent, by intimidation and threat, various material witnesses from freely, fully and truthfully testifying as to matters raised in the within complaint.
      “57. On information and belief, since the time of filing the statutorily mandated claim with the Arizona Board of Regents, defendants Kush, Miller and Horton have conspired for the purpose of hindering or obstructing the due course of justice with an intent to deny the plaintiff equal protection of the laws by threatening and intimidating potential material witnesses, to prevent the plaintiff from lawfully enforcing his rights and to ‘cover up’ the wrongful acts of defendants Kush and Maskill.” App. to Pet. for Cert. E-ll to E-12.
      These allegations might appear to describe only a conspiracy to interfere with potential witnesses before the Arizona Board of Regents. But ¶ 56 reflects the specific language of the first clause of § 1985(2), which relates to witness intimidation in connection with federal proceedings, see n. 4, infra, whereas ¶ 57 closely follows the wording of the second clause of that provision, which applies to witness intimidation in state-court proceedings, see n. 3, infra. Paragraph 60 then alleges generally that § 1985(2) has been violated by the defendants. Thus ¶ 56 of the complaint can fairly be read as alleging a conspiracy related to federal judicial proceedings.

       The Court of Appeals concluded:
      “On remand the district court may wish to require the appellant to amend Count Five to make more particular his allegations under part one of section 1985(2) and to eliminate those allegations pertaining to the second part of that section. Nothing in this opinion should be construed to prevent this course of action.” 660 F. 2d, at 1355.

       The second portion of § 1985(2) provides:
      “[0]r if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws ...” (emphasis added).

       The first part of § 1985(2) provides:
      “If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror . . . .”

       Our limited grant of certiorari does not encompass the question whether the alleged conspiracy to interfere with witnesses gave rise to any recoverable damages. This issue remains open for consideration by the District Court on remand from the Court of Appeals.

       When Congress passed legislation in 1874 to consolidate and collect all federal statutes and laws in the Revised Statutes, 18 Stat. 113, it expressed no intention to change the meaning of the laws, although minor changes in language were made to accommodate the consolidation. Cf. Pott v. Arthur, 104 U. S. 735, 736 (1881).

       Although the provisions dealing with interference with federal judicial proceedings and state judicial proceedings now appear together in § 1985(2), they were separated by other material in the original version of § 2. See Appendix to this opinion.

       For the second clause of § 1985(2), see n. 3, supra. The first portion of § 1985(3), which actually contains two separate clauses, reads as follows:
      “If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws ...” (emphasis added).

       We are unpersuaded by petitioners’ argument that a contrary conclusion is required because the authorization of remedies found at the end of § 1985(3) applies to the entire section. The location of the remedial language merely confirms our view that the meaning of any part of § 1985 is informed by its entire text.

       See Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 486 (1871) (remarks of Rep. Cook, supporter); id., at App. 220 (remarks of Sen. Thurman, opponent). The legislative history is discussed accurately and persuasively by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in McCord v. Bailey, 204 U. S. App. D. C. 334, 345, 636 F. 2d 606, 615-617 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U. S. 983 (1981).


author: Justice Rehnquist Justice White, Justice Powell, Justice Stevens,

text:
    TEXAS v. BROWN
    No. 81-419.
    Argued January 12, 1983
    Decided April 19, 1983
    Justice Rehnquist, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O’ConnoR, concluded that the police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in seizing the green balloon from respondent’s automobile. The plain-view doctrine provides grounds for a warrantless seizure of a suspicious item when the officer’s access to the item has some prior justification under the Fourth Amendment. This rule merely reflects an application of the Fourth Amendment’s central requirement of reasonableness to the law governing seizures of property. Here, the officer’s initial stop of respondent’s vehicle was valid, and his actions in shining his flashlight into the car and changing his position to see what was inside did not violate any Fourth Amendment rights. The “immediately apparent” language in Coolidge, supra, does not establish a requirement that a police officer “know” that certain items are contraband or evidence of a crime. “The seizure of property in plain view involves no invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity.” Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 587. Probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard, merely requiring that the facts available to the officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. In view of the police officer’s testimony here, corroborated by that of the police department chemist, as to the common use of balloons in packaging narcotics, the officer had probable cause to believe that the balloon contained an illicit substance. Moreover, the requirement of the plain-view doctrine under Coolidge, supra, that the officer must discover incriminating evidence “inadvertently,” without knowing in advance the location of the particular evidence and intending to seize it by use of the doctrine as a pretext, was no bar to the seizure here. Pp. 735-744.
    Justice Powell, joined by Justice Blackmun, concurring in the judgment, concluded that the articulation in Coolidge, supra, of the plain-view exception to the Warrant Clause requirements of the Fourth Amendment is dispositive of the issue here. Respondent conceded that the officer’s initial intrusion was lawful and that the discovery of the tied-off balloon was inadvertent in that it was observed in the course of a lawful inspection of the front seat area of the automobile. If probable cause must be shown to justify the seizure, it existed here, in light of the evidence that tied-off balloons are common containers for carrying illegal narcotics. Moreover, a law enforcement officer may rely on his training and experience to draw inferences and make deductions that might well elude an untrained person. Pp. 744-746.
    Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall, concurring in the judgment, concluded that under the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement the officer’s warrantless temporary seizure of the balloon was proper, but that before the balloon’s contents could be used as evidence, the State had to justify opening it without a warrant, a question that remains open to the state court on remand. Pp. 747-751.
    Rehnquist, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., and White and O’Connor, JJ., joined. White, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 744. Powell, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Blackmun, J., joined, post, p. 744. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Brennan and Marshall, JJ., joined, post, p. 747.

      C. Chris Marshall argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Tim Curry, L. T. Wilson, and Stephen R. Chaney.

      Allan K. Butcher argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was J. Don Carter.

        Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Jensen, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, and Joshua I. Schwartz filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal.

   Justice Rehnquist

announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O’Connor joined.

Respondent Clifford James Brown was convicted in the District Court of Tarrant County, Tex., for possession of heroin in violation of state law. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction, holding that certain evidence should have been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 617 S. W. 2d 196. That court rejected the State’s contention that the so-called “plain view” doctrine justified the police seizure. Because of apparent uncertainty concerning the scope and applicability of this doctrine, we granted certiorari, 457 U. S. 1116, and now reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

On a summer evening in June 1979, Tom Maples, an officer of the Fort Worth police force, assisted in setting up a routine driver’s license checkpoint on East Allen Street in that city. Shortly before midnight Maples stopped an automobile driven by respondent Brown, who was alone. Standing alongside the driver’s window of Brown’s car, Maples asked him for his driver’s license. At roughly the same time, Maples shined his flashlight into the car and saw Brown withdraw his right hand from his right pants pocket. Caught between the two middle fingers of the hand was an opaque, green party balloon, knotted about one-half inch from the tip. Brown let the balloon fall to the seat beside his leg, and then reached across the passenger seat and opened the glove compartment.

Because of his previous experience in arrests for drug offenses, Maples testified that he was aware that narcotics frequently were packaged in balloons like the one in Brown’s hand. When he saw the balloon, Maples shifted his position in order to obtain a better view of the interior of the glove compartment. He noticed that it contained several small plastic vials, quantities of loose white powder, and an open bag of party balloons. After rummaging briefly through the glove compartment, Brown told Maples that he had no driver’s license in his possession. Maples then instructed him to get out of the car and stand at its rear. Brown complied, and, before following him to the rear of the car, Maples reached into the car and picked up the green balloon; there seemed to be a sort of powdery substance within the tied-off portion of the balloon.

Maples then displayed the balloon to a fellow officer who indicated that he “understood the situation.” The two officers then advised Brown that he was under arrest. They also conducted an on-the-scene inventory of Brown’s car, discovering several plastic bags containing a green leafy substance and a large bottle of milk sugar. These items, like the balloon, were seized by the officers. At the suppression hearing conducted by the District Court, a police department chemist testified that he had examined the substance in the balloon seized by Maples and determined that it was heroin. He also testified that narcotics frequently were packaged in ordinary party balloons.

The Court of Criminal Appeals, discussing the Fourth Amendment issue, observed that “ ‘plain view alone is never enough to justify the warrantless seizure of evidence.’ ” 617 S. W. 2d, at 200, quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 468 (1971) (opinion of Stewart, J., joined by Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall, JJ.) It further concluded that “Officer Maples had to know that ‘incriminatory evidence was before him when he seized the balloon.’” 617 S. W. 2d, at 200 (emphasis supplied), quoting DeLao v. State, 550 S. W. 2d 289, 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). On the State’s petition for rehearing, three judges dissented, stating their view that “[t]he issue turns on whether an officer, relying on years of practical experience and knowledge commonly accepted, has probable cause to seize the balloon in plain view.” 617 S. W. 2d, at 201.

Because the “plain view” doctrine generally is invoked in conjunction with other Fourth Amendment principles, such as those relating to warrants, probable cause, and search incident to arrest, we rehearse briefly these better understood principles of Fourth Amendment law. That Amendment secures the persons, houses, papers, and effects of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires the existence of probable cause before a warrant shall issue. Our cases hold that procedure by way of a warrant is preferred, although in a wide range of diverse situations we have recognized flexible, common-sense exceptions to this requirement. See, e. g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (1967) (hot pursuit); United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48, 51-52 (1951) (exigent circumstances); United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982) (automobile search); Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973), and New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981) (search of person and surrounding area incident to arrest); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973) (search at border or “functional equivalent”); Zap v. United States, 328 U. S. 624, 630 (1946) (consent). We have also held to be permissible intrusions less severe than full-scale searches or seizures without the necessity of a warrant. See, e. g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968) (stop and frisk); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 (1975) (seizure for questioning); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648 (1979) (roadblock). One frequently mentioned “exception to the warrant requirement,” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, at 456, is the so-called “plain view” doctrine, relied upon by the State in this case.

While conceding that the green balloon seized by Officer Maples was clearly visible to him, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the State might not avail itself of the “plain view” doctrine. That court said:

“For the plain view doctrine to apply, not only must the officer be legitimately in a position to view the object, but it must be immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them. This ‘immediately apparent’ aspect is central to the plain view exception and is here relied upon by appellant. [Citation omitted.] In this case then, Officer Maples had to know that ‘incriminatory evidence was before him when he seized the balloon.’” 617 S. W. 2d, at 200.

The Court of Criminal Appeals based its conclusion primarily on the plurality portion of the opinion of this Court in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra. In the Coolidge plurality’s view, the “plain view” doctrine permits the warrantless seizure by police of private possessions where three requirements are satisfied. First, the police officer must lawfully make an “initial intrusion” or otherwise properly be in a position from which he can view a particular area. Id., at 465-468. Second, the officer must discover incriminating evidence “inadvertently,” which is to say, he may not “know in advance the location of [certain] evidence and intend to seize it,” relying on the plain-view doctrine only as a pretext. Id., at 470. Finally, it must be “immediately apparent” to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. Id., at 466. While the lower courts generally have applied the Coolidge plurality’s discussion of “plain view,” it has never been expressly adopted by a majority of this Court. On the contrary, the plurality’s formulation was sharply criticized at the time, see, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S., at 506 (Black, J., dissenting); id., at 516-521 (White, J., dissenting). While not a binding precedent, as the considered opinion of four Members of this Court it should obviously be the point of reference for further discussion of the issue.

The Coolidge plurality observed: “it is important to keep in mind that, in the vast majority of cases, any evidence seized by the police will be in plain view, at least at the moment of seizure,” simply as “the normal concomitant of any search, legal or illegal.” Id., at 465. The question whether property in plain view of the police may be seized therefore must turn on the legality of the intrusion that enables them to perceive and physically seize the property in question. The Coolidge plurality, while following this approach to “plain view,” characterized it as an independent exception to the warrant requirement. At least from an analytical perspective, this description may be somewhat inaccurate. We recognized in Payton v. New, York, 445 U. S. 573, 587 (1980), the well-settled rule that “objects such as weapons or contraband found in a public place may be seized by the police without a warrant. The seizure of property in plain view involves no invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity.” A different situation is presented, however, when the property in open view is “‘situated on private premises to which access is not otherwise available for the seizing officer.’” Ibid., quoting G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U. S. 338, 354 (1977). As these cases indicate, “plain view” provides grounds for seizure of an item when an officer’s access to an object has some prior justification under the Fourth Amendment. “Plain view” is perhaps better understood, therefore, not as an independent “exception” to the Warrant Clause, but simply as an extension of whatever the prior justification for an officer’s “access to an object” may be.

The principle is grounded on the recognition that when a police officer has observed an object in “plain view,” the owner’s remaining interests in the object are merely those of possession and ownership, see Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, at 515 (White, J., dissenting). Likewise, it reflects the fact that requiring police to obtain a warrant once they have obtained a first-hand perception of contraband, stolen property, or incriminating evidence generally would be a “needless inconvenience,” 403 U. S., at 468, that might involve danger to the police and public. Ibid. We have said previously that “the permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on . . . Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S., at 654. In light of the private and governmental interests just outlined, our decisions have come to reflect the rule that if, while lawfully engaged in an activity in a particular place, police officers perceive a suspicious object, they may seize it immediately. See Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192 (1927); Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 358 (1931); United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452, 465 (1932); Harris v. United States, 390 U. S. 234, 236 (1968); Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731 (1969). This rule merely reflects an application of the Fourth Amendment’s central requirement of reasonableness to the law governing seizures of property.

Applying these principles, we conclude that Officer Maples properly seized the green balloon from Brown’s automobile. The Court of Criminal Appeals stated that it did not “question . . . the validity of the officer’s initial stop of appellant’s vehicle as a part of a license check,” 617 S. W. 2d, at 200, and we agree. Delaware v. Prouse, supra, at 654-655. It is likewise beyond dispute that Maples’ action in shining his flashlight to illuminate the interior of Brown’s car trenched upon no right secured to the latter by the Fourth Amendment. The Court said in United States v. Lee, 274 U. S. 559, 563 (1927): “[The] use of a searchlight is comparable to the use of a marine glass or a field glass. It is not prohibited by the Constitution.” Numerous other courts have agreed that the use of artificial means to illuminate a darkened area simply does not constitute a search, and thus triggers no Fourth Amendment protection.

Likewise, the fact that Maples “changed [his] position” and “bent down at an angle so [he] could see what was inside” Brown’s car, App. 16, is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis. The general public could peer into the interior of Brown’s automobile from any number of angles; there is no reason Maples should be precluded from observing as an officer what would be entirely visible to him as a private citizen. There is no legitimate expectation of privacy, Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 739-745 (1979), shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which may be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers. In short, the conduct that enabled Maples to observe the interior of Brown’s car and of his open glove compartment was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Thus there can be no dispute here as to the presence of the first of the three requirements held necessary by the Coolidge plurality to invoke the “plain view” doctrine. But the Court of Criminal Appeals, as we have noted, felt the State’s case ran aground on the requirement that the incriminating nature of the items be “immediately apparent” to the police officer. To the Court of Criminal Appeals, this apparently meant that the officer must be possessed of near certainty as to the seizable nature of the items. Decisions by this Court since Coolidge indicate that the use of the phrase “immediately apparent” was very likely an unhappy choice of words, since it can be taken to imply that an unduly high degree of certainty as to the incriminatory character of evidence is necessary for an application of the “plain view” doctrine.

In Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U. S. 1, 3-4 (1980), we applied what was in substance the plain-view doctrine to an officer’s seizure of evidence from an automobile. Id., at 4, n. 4. The officer noticed that the occupants of the automobile matched a description of persons suspected of a theft and that auto parts in the open glove compartment of the car similarly resembled ones reported stolen. The Court held that these facts supplied the officer with “probable cause,” id., at 4, and therefore, that he could seize the incriminating items from the car without a warrant. Plainly, the Court did not view the “immediately apparent” language of Coolidge as establishing any requirement that a police officer “know” that certain items are contraband or evidence of a crime. Indeed, Colorado v. Bannister, supra, was merely an application of the rule, set forth in Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573 (1980), that “[t]he seizure of property in plain view involves no invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity.” Id., at 587 (emphasis added). We think this statement of the rule from Payton, supra, requiring probable cause for seizure in the ordinary case, is consistent with the Fourth Amendment and we reaffirm it here.

As the Court frequently has remarked, probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. It merely requires that the facts available to the officer would “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief,” Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 182, 162 (1925), that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A “practical, nontechnical” probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176 (1949). Moreover, our observation in United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411, 418 (1981), regarding “particularized suspicion,” is equally applicable to the probable-cause requirement:

“The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain common-sense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as factfinders are permitted to do the same — and so are law enforcement officers. Finally, the evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement.”

With these considerations in mind it is plain that Officer Maples possessed probable cause to believe that the balloon in Brown’s hand contained an illicit substance. Maples testified that he was aware, both from his participation in previous narcotics arrests and from discussions with other officers,

that balloons tied in the manner of the one possessed by Brown were frequently used to carry narcotics. This testimony was corroborated by that of a police department chemist who noted that it was “common” for balloons to be used in packaging narcotics. In addition, Maples was able to observe the contents of the glove compartment of Brown’s car, which revealed further suggestions that Brown was engaged in activities that might involve possession of illicit substances. The fact that Maples could not see through the opaque fabric of the balloon is all but irrelevant: the distinctive character of the balloon itself spoke volumes as to its contents — particularly to the trained eye of the officer.

In addition to its statement that for seizure of objects in plain view to be justified the basis upon which they might be seized had to be “immediately apparent,” and the requirement that the initial intrusion be lawful, both of which requirements we hold were satisfied here, the Coolidge plurality also stated that the police must discover incriminating evidence “inadvertently,” which is to say, they may not “know in advance the location of [certain] evidence and intend to seize it,” relying on the plain-view doctrine only as a pretense. 430 U. S., at 470. Whatever may be the final disposition of the “inadvertence” element of “plain view,” it clearly was no bar to the seizure here. The circumstances of this meeting between Maples and Brown give no suggestion that the roadblock was a pretext whereby evidence of narcotics violation might be uncovered in “plain view” in the course of a check for driver’s licenses. Here, although the officers no doubt had an expectation that some of the cars they halted on East Allen Street — which was part of a “medium” area of narcotics traffic, App. 33 — would contain narcotics or paraphernalia, there is no indication in the record that they had anything beyond this generalized expectation. Likewise, there is no indication that Maples had any reason to believe that any particular object would be in Brown’s glove compartment or elsewhere in his automobile. The “inadvertence” requirement of “plain view,” properly understood, was no bar to the seizure here.

Maples lawfully viewed the green balloon in the interior of Brown’s car, and had probable cause to believe that it was subject to seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Justice White,

concurring.

While joining Justice Rehnquist’s plurality opinion, I continue to disagree with the views of four Justices in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 469 (1971), that plain-view seizures are valid only if the viewing is “inadvertent.” Nor does the Court purport to endorse that view in its opinions today.

Justice Powell,

with whom Justice Blackmun joins, concurring in the judgment.

I concur in the judgment, and also agree with much of the plurality’s opinion relating to the application in this case of the plain-view exception to the Warrant Clause. But I do not join the plurality’s opinion because it goes well beyond the application of the exception. As I read the opinion, it appears to accord less significance to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment than is justified by the language and purpose of that Amendment. In dissent in United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56 (1950), Justice Frankfurter wrote eloquently:

“One cannot wrench ‘unreasonable searches’ from the text and context and historic content of the Fourth Amendment. . . . When [that] Amendment outlawed 'unreasonable searches’ and then went on to define the very restricted authority that even a search warrant issued by a magistrate could give, the framers said with all the clarity of the gloss of history that a search is ‘unreasonable’ unless a warrant authorizes it, barring only exceptions justified by absolute necessity.” Id., at 70.

To be sure, the opinions of this Court in Warrant Clause cases have not always been consistent. They have reflected disagreement among Justices as to the extent to which the Clause defines the reasonableness standard of the Amendment. In one of my earliest opinions, United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297 (1972), I cited Justice Frankfurter’s Rabinowitz dissent in emphasizing the importance of the Warrant Clause. 407 U. S., at 316. Although I would not say that exceptions can be justified only by “absolute necessity,” I stated that they were “few in number and carefully delineated.” Id., at 318. This has continued to be my view, as expressed recently in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753, 759 (1979). It is a view frequently repeated by this Court. See, e. g., United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 825 (1982); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 390 (1978) (unanimous decision); Vale v. Lousiana, 399 U. S. 30, 34 (1970); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967); Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 528-529 (1967); Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 499 (1958).

This case involves an application of the plain-view exception, first addressed at some length by the plurality portion of the opinion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971). The plurality today states that this opinion “has never been expressly adopted by a majority of this Court.” Ante, at 737. Whatever my view might have been when Coolidge was decided, I see no reason at this late date to imply criticism of its articulation of this exception. It has been accepted generally for over a decade. Moreover, it seems unnecessary to cast doubt on Coolidge in this case. Its plurality formulation is dispositive of the question before us.

Respondent Brown does not dispute that Officer Maples’ initial intrusion was lawful. Brown also concedes that the discovery of the tied-off balloon was inadvertent in that it was observed in the course of a lawful inspection of the front seat area of the automobile. If probable cause must be shown, as the Payton dicta suggest, see Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 587 (1980), I think it is clear that it existed here. Officer Maples testified that he previously had made an arrest in a case where narcotics were carried in tied-off balloons similar to the one at issue here. Other officers had told him of such cases. Even if it were not generally known that a balloon is a common container for carrying illegal narcotics, we have recognized that a law enforcement officer may rely on his training and experience to draw inferences and make deductions that might well elude an untrained person. United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411, 418 (1981). We are not advised of any innocent item that is commonly carried in uninflated, tied-off balloons such as the one Officer Maples seized.

Accordingly, I concur in the judgment as it is consistent with principles established by our prior decisions.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall join, concurring in the judgment.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the war-rantless seizure of respondent’s balloon could not be justified under the plain-view doctrine because incriminating evidence was not immediately apparent. This Court reverses, holding that even though the contents of the balloon were not visible to the officer, incriminating evidence was immediately apparent because he had probable cause to believe the balloon contained an illicit substance. I agree with the Court that contraband need not be visible in order for a plain-view seizure to be justified. I therefore concur in the conclusion that the Texas Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment more strictly than is required.

The plurality’s explanation of our disposition of this case is, however, incomplete. It gives inadequate consideration to our cases holding that a closed container may not be opened without a warrant, even when the container is in plain view and the officer has probable cause to believe contraband is concealed within. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1 (1977); Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753 (1979); United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 811-812 (1982). Final determination of whether the trial court properly denied the suppression motion requires a more complete understanding of the plain-view doctrine, as well as the answer to a factual inquiry that remains open to the state court on remand.

Although our Fourth Amendment cases sometimes refer indiscriminately to searches and seizures, there are important differences between the two that are relevant to the plain-view doctrine. The Amendment protects two different interests of the citizen — the interest in retaining possession of property and the interest in maintaining personal privacy. A seizure threatens the former, a search the latter. As a matter of timing, a seizure is usually preceded by a search, but when a container is involved the converse is often true. Significantly, the two protected interests are not always present to the same extent; for example, the seizure of a locked suitcase does not necessarily compromise the secrecy of its contents, and the search of a stopped vehicle does not necessarily deprive its owner of possession.

An object may be considered to be “in plain view” if it can be seized without compromising any interest in privacy. Since seizure of such an object threatens only the interest in possession, circumstances diminishing that interest may justify exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s usual requirements. Thus, if an item has been abandoned, neither Fourth Amendment interest is implicated, and neither probable cause nor a warrant is necessary to justify seizure. See, e. g., Abel v. United States, 362 U. S. 217, 241 (1960); cf. United States v. Lisk, 522 F. 2d 228, 230 (CA71975). And if an officer has probable cause to believe that a publicly situated item is associated with criminal activity, the interest in possession is outweighed by the risk that such an item might disappear or be put to its intended use before a warrant could be obtained. The officer may therefore seize it without a warrant. See G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U. S. 338, 354 (1975); Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 587 (1980). The “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement is easy to understand and to apply in cases in which no search is made and no intrusion on privacy occurs.

The Court’s more difficult plain-view cases, however, have regularly arisen in two contexts that link the seizure with a prior or subsequent search. The first is the situation in which an officer who is executing a valid search for one item seizes a different item. The Court has been sensitive to the danger inherent in such a situation that officers will enlarge a specific authorization, furnished by a warrant or an exigency, into the equivalent of a general warrant to rummage and seize at will. That danger is averted by strict attention to two of the core requirements of plain view: seizing the item must entail no significant additional invasion of privacy, and at the time of seizure the officer must have probable cause to connect the item with criminal behavior. See United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452, 465 (1932); cf. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 465-466 (1971).

The second familiar context is the situation in which an officer comes upon a container in plain view and wants both to seize it and to examine its contents. In recent years, the Court has spoken at some length about the latter act, e. g., Ross, supra; Chadwick, supra; Sanders, supra, emphasizing the Fourth Amendment privacy values implicated whenever a container is opened. In this case, however, both the search of a container (the balloon) and the antecedent seizure are open to challenge. In that regard, it more closely resembles Coolidge, supra. All of these cases, however, demonstrate that the constitutionality of a container search is not automatically determined by the constitutionality of the prior seizure. See Chadwick, 433 U. S., at 13-14, n. 8; Sanders, 442 U. S., at 761-762. Separate inquiries are necessary, taking into account the separate interests at stake.

If a movable container is in plain view, seizure does not implicate any privacy interests. Therefore, if there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband, the owner’s posses-sory interest in the container must yield to society’s interest in making sure that the contraband does not vanish during the time it would take to obtain a warrant. The item may be seized temporarily. It does not follow, however, that the container may be opened on the spot. Once the container is in custody, there is no risk that evidence will be destroyed. Some inconvenience to the officer is entailed by requiring him to obtain a warrant before opening the container, but that alone does not excuse the duty to go before a neutral magistrate. Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 15 (1948); McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 455 (1948). As Justice Powell emphasizes, ante, at 744-745, the Warrant Clause embodies our government’s historical commitment to bear the burden of inconvenience. Exigent circumstances must be shown before the Constitution will entrust an individual’s privacy to the judgment of a single police officer.

In this case, I have no doubt concerning the propriety of the officer’s warrantless seizure of the balloon. For the reasons stated by Justices Powell and Rehnquist, I agree that the police officer invaded no privacy interest in order to see the balloon, and that when he saw it he had probable cause to believe it contained drugs. But before the balloon’s contents could be used as evidence against the respondent, the State also had to justify opening it without a warrant. I can perceive two potential justifications. First, it is entirely possible that what the officer saw in the car’s glove compartment, coupled with his observation of respondent and the contents of his pockets, provided probable cause to believe that contraband was located somewhere in the car — and not merely in the one balloon at issue. If so, then under United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982), which was not decided until after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed this case, it was permissible to examine the contents of any container in the car, including this balloon.

Alternatively, the balloon could be one of those rare single-purpose containers which “by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance.” Sanders, swpra, at 764-765, n. 13. Whereas a suitcase or a paper bag may contain an almost infinite variety of items, a balloon of this kind might be used only to transport drugs. Viewing it where he did could have given the officer a degree of certainty that is equivalent to the plain view of the heroin itself. If that be true, I would conclude that the plain-view doctrine supports the search as well as the seizure even though the contents of the balloon were not actually visible to the officer.

This reasoning leads me to the conclusion that the Fourth Amendment would not require exclusion of the balloon’s contents in this case if, but only if, there was probable cause to search the entire vehicle or there was virtual certainty that the balloon contained a controlled substance. Neither of these fact-bound inquiries was made by the Texas courts, and neither should be made by this Court in the first instance. Moreover, it may be that on remand the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will find those inquiries unnecessary because the respondent may have waived his right to demand them. See n. 3, supra. I therefore concur in the judgment.

       Brown argues that the decision below rested on an independent and adequate state ground, and therefore that this Court lacks jurisdiction. Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U. S. 207, 210 (1935). The position is untenable. The opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rests squarely on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971), and on Texas cases interpreting that decision, e. g., Howard v. State, 599 S. W. 2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); DeLao v. State, 550 S. W. 2d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Duncan v. State, 549 S. W. 2d 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); and Nicholas v. State, 502 S. W. 2d 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). The only mention of the Texas Constitution occurs in a summary of Brown’s contentions at the outset of the lower court’s opinion.
      Brown relies principally on Howard v. State, supra, and Duncan v. State, supra. Neither decision supports the proposition that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals based its decision upon state law. In Howard, the State argued that the plain-view doctrine justified the seizure of a closed translucent medicine jar from an automobile. The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the claim, relying on Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, and stating that the State’s arguments “cannot be squared with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the plain view doctrine.” 599 S. W. 2d, at 602. The court also relied on Thomas v. State, 572 S. W. 2d 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976), which it characterized as “[fjollowing the teachings of Coolidge v. New Hampshire.” 599 S. W. 2d, at 602. An additional opinion of the court on the State’s motion for rehearing merely elaborated upon the application of the plain-view doctrine set forth in the court’s original opinion. Similarly, in Duncan, the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the State’s reliance on the plain-view theory, citing to Coolidge for a statement of the applicable law, as well as to Nicholas v. State, supra. Like the court’s other decisions in the area, Nicholas relied only on Coolidge.

       It is not clear on the record before us when Brown was arrested. The Court of Criminal Appeals stated, at one point in its opinion, that it did not question “the propriety of the arrest since appellant failed to produce a driver’s license.” ■ 617 S. W. 2d 196,200. This statement might be read to suggest that Brown was arrested upon his failure to produce a license, instead of at some point following seizure of the balloon from the car. The transcript of the suppression hearing, however, indicates rather clearly that Brown was not formally arrested until after seizure of the balloon. App. 28-31. In the face of such indications, we decline to interpret the above-quoted clause from the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion as evidencing a belief that an arrest occurred prior to seizure of the balloon. Rather, we think it likely that the court was simply reasoning that Brown’s arrest, whenever it may have taken place, was justified because of his failure to produce a driver’s license.
      We do not address the argument that seizure of the balloon would have been justified under New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981), which permits warrantless searches of the passenger compartment of an automobile incident to an arrest, because of the absence of clear factual findings regarding the time at which, and the reason for which, Brown was arrested and because the lower court was not able to consider that decision.

       The plurality also remarked that “plain view alone is never enough to justify the warrantless seizure of evidence.” 403 U. S., at 468. The court below appeared to understand this phrase to impose an independent limitation upon the scope of the plain-view doctrine articulated in Coolidge. The context in which the plurality used the phrase, however, indicates that it was merely a rephrasing of its conclusion, discussed below, that in order for the plain-view doctrine to apply, a police officer must be engaged in a lawful intrusion or must otherwise legitimately occupy the position affording him a “plain view.”

       Thus, police may perceive an object while executing a search warrant, or they may come across an item while acting pursuant to some exception to the Warrant Clause, e. g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (1967); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). Alternatively, police may need no justification under the Fourth Amendment for their access to an item, such as when property is left in a public place, see Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 587 (1980).
      It is important to distinguish “plain view,” as used in Coolidge to justify seizure of an object, from an officer’s mere observation of an item left in plain view. Whereas the latter generally involves no Fourth Amendment search, see infra, at 740; Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), the former generally does implicate the Amendment’s limitations upon seizures of personal property. The information obtained as a result of observation of an object in plain sight may be the basis for probable cause or reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. In turn, these levels of suspicion may, in some cases, see, e. g., Terry v. Ohio, supra; United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982), justify police conduct affording them access to a particular item.

         E. g., United States v. Chesher, 678 F. 2d 1353, 1356-1357, n. 2 (CA9 1982); United States v. Ocampo, 650 F. 2d 421, 427 (CA2 1981); United States v. Pugh, 566 F. 2d 626, 627, n. 2 (CA8 1977), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 1010 (1978); United States v. Coplen, 541 F. 2d 211 (CA9 1976), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1073 (1977); United States v. Lara, 517 F. 2d 209 (CA5 1975); United States v. Johnson, 506 F. 2d 674 (CA8 1974), cert. denied, 421 U. S. 917 (1975); United States v. Booker, 461 F. 2d 990, 992 (CA6 1972); United States v. Hanahan, 442 F. 2d 649 (CA7 1971); People v. Waits, 196 Colo. 35, 580 P. 2d 391 (1978); Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 243 S. E. 2d 16 (1978); State v. Chattley, 390 A. 2d 472 (Me. 1978); State v. Vohnoutka, 292 N. W. 2d 756 (Minn. 1980); Dick v. State, 596 P. 2d 1265 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979); State v. Miller, 45 Ore. App. 407, 608 P. 2d 595 (1980); Albo v. State, 379 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1980).

       While seizure of the balloon required a warrantless, physical intrusion into Brown’s automobile, this was proper, assuming that the remaining requirements of the plain-view doctrine were satisfied. United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982).

       We need not address whether, in some circumstances, a degree of suspicion lower than probable cause would be sufficient basis for a seizure in certain cases.

       See State v. King, 191 N. W. 2d 650, 655 (Iowa 1971); United States v. Santana, 485 F. 2d 365, 369-370 (CA2 1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 931 (1974); United States v. Bradshaw, 490 F. 2d 1097, 1101, n. 3 (CA4), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 895 (1974); North v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. 3d 301, 306-307, 502 P. 2d 1305, 1308 (1972).

       1 have considered the automobile exception, for example, as one clearly justified because of the nature of the vehicle. See, e. g., Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753, 760-761 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 561-562 (1976); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266, 279 (1973) (Powell, J., concurring).

       See, e. g., United States v. Chesher, 678 F. 2d 1353, 1356-1357 (CA9 1982); United States v. Irizarry, 673 F. 2d 554, 558-560 (CA1 1982); United States v. Tolerton, 669 F. 2d 652, 653-655 (CA10), cert. denied, 456 U. S. 949 (1982); United States v. Antill, 615 F. 2d 648, 649 (CA5) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 866 (1980); United States v. Duckett, 583 F. 2d 1309, 1313-1314 (CA51978); United States v. Williams, 523 F. 2d 64, 66-67 (CA8 1975), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1090 (1976); United States v. Truitt, 521 F. 2d 1174, 1175-1178 (CA6 1975); United States v. Pacelli, 470 F. 2d 67, 70-72 (CA2 1972), cert. denied, 410 U. S. 983 (1973); United States v. Drew, 451 F. 2d 230, 232-234 (CA5 1971).

       In defending the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ judgment before this Court, the respondent did not rely upon a challenge to the search of the balloon. I nevertheless believe it is necessary to elaborate upon the distinction between the balloon’s search and its seizure in this case in order to clarify what the Court does and does not hold today. Moreover, it is not clear to me whether, as a matter of Texas law, the respondent would still be permitted to present an argument that the evidence should be suppressed because it was obtained after a search of the balloon. See n. 3, infra.

       Although Coolidge is not always thought of as a container case, the Court was required to confront New Hampshire’s separate attempts to justify both its warrantless seizure of a container, an immobilized automobile, see 403 U. S., at 464-473, and its subsequent warrantless searches of the container’s interior, see id., at 458-464.

       Arguably, as a matter of Texas law the respondent has waived his right to demand such a justification. That is, of course, an issue for the Texas courts.

       Conversely, the fact that an object is visible does not automatically mean that it is in plain view in the sense that no invasion of privacy is required to seize it. This case does not require elaboration of what the Fourth Amendment demands before an officer may seize a visible item that he could not reach without, for example, entering a private home or destroying a valuable container. See Taylor v. United States, 286 U. S. 1, 5 (1932).

       Sometimes there can be greater certainty about the identity of a substance within a container than about the identity of a substance that is actually visible. One might actually see a white powder without realizing that it is heroin, but be virtually certain a balloon contains such a substance in a particular context. It seems to me that in evaluating whether a person’s privacy interests are infringed, “virtual certainty” is a more meaningful indicator than visibility.