author: Justice Stewart Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stevens, Justice Brennan, Justice White,

text:
    NEW YORK v. BELTON
    No. 80-328.
    Argued April 27, 1981
    Decided July 1, 1981
    Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Blackmun, Powell, and RehNQuist, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, J., filed a concurring statement, post, p. 463. Stevens, J., filed a statement concurring in the judgment, post, p. 463. Brennan, J., post, p. 463, and White, J., post, p. 472, filed dissenting opinions, in which Marshall, J., joined.

      James R. Harvey argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was R. Michael Tantillo.

      Paul J. Cambria, Jr., argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

      Deputy Solicitor General Frey argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney, and Elliott Schulderr

         Richard Emery, Charles S. Sims, and Bruce J. Ennis, Jr., filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.

   Justice Stewart

delivered the opinion of the Court.

When the occupant of an automobile is subjected to a lawful custodial arrest, does the constitutionally permissible scope of a search incident to his arrest include the passenger compartment of the automobile in which he was riding? That is the question at issue in the present case.

I

On April 9, 1978, Trooper Douglas Nicot, a New York State policeman driving an unmarked car on the New York Thruway, was passed by another automobile traveling at an excessive rate of speed. Nicot gave chase, overtook the speeding vehicle, and ordered its driver to pull it over to the side of the road and stop. There were four men in the car, one of whom was Roger Belton, the respondent in this case. The policeman asked to see the driver’s license and automobile registration, and discovered that none of the men owned the vehicle or was related to its owner. Meanwhile, the policeman had smelled burnt marihuana and had seen on the floor of the car an envelope marked “Supergold” that he associated with marihuana. He therefore directed the men to get out of the car, and placed them under arrest for the unlawful possession of marihuana. He patted down each of the men and “split them up into four separate areas of the Thruway at this time so they would not be in physical touching area of each other.” He then picked up the envelope marked “Supergold” and found that it contained marihuana. After giving the arrestees the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, the state policeman searched each one of them. He then searched the passenger compartment of the car. On the back seat he found a black leather jacket belonging to Belton. He unzipped one of the pockets of the jacket and discovered cocaine. Placing the jacket in his automobile, he drove the four arrestees to a nearby police station.

Belton was subsequently indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance. In the trial court he moved that the cocaine the trooper had seized from the jacket pocket be suppressed. The court denied the motion. Belton then pleaded guilty to a lesser included offense, but preserved his claim that the cocaine had been seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U. S. 283. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the search and seizure, reasoning that “[o]nce defendant was validly arrested for possession of marihuana, the officer was justified in searching the immediate area for other contraband.” 68 App. Div. 2d 198, 201, 416 N. Y. S. 2d 922, 926.

The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that “[a] warrantless search of the zippered pockets of an unacces-sible jacket may not be upheld as a search incident to a lawful arrest where there is no longer any danger that the arrestee or a confederate might gain access to the article.” 60 N. Y. 2d 447, 449, 407 N. E. 2d 420, 421. Two judges dissented. They pointed out that the “search was conducted by a lone peace officer who was in the process of arresting four unknown individuals whom he had stopped in a speeding car owned by none of them and apparently containing an uncertain quantity of a controlled substance. The suspects were standing by the side of the car as the officer gave it a quick check to confirm his suspicions before attempting to transport them to police headquarters . . . Id., at 454, 407 N. E. 2d, at 424. We granted certiorari to consider the constitutionally permissible scope of a search in circumstances such as these. 449 U. S. 1109.

II

It is a first principle of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that the police may not conduct a search unless they first convince a neutral magistrate that there is probable cause to do so. This Court has recognized, however, that “the exigencies of the situation” may sometimes make exemption from the warrant requirement “imperative.” McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 456. Specifically, the Court held in Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, that a lawful custodial arrest creates a situation which justifies the contemporaneous search without a warrant of the person arrested and of the immediately surrounding area. Such searches have long been considered valid because of the need “to remove any weapons that [the arrestee] might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape” and the need to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence. Id., at 763.

The Court’s opinion in Chimel emphasized the principle that, as the Court had said in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 19, “[t]he scope of [a] search must be 'strictly tied to and justified by’ the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible.” Quoted in Chimel v. California, supra, at 762. Thus while the Court in Chimel found “ample justification” for a search of “the area from within which [an arrestee] might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence,” the Court found “no comparable justification ... for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs — or, for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself.” 395 U. S., at 763.

Although the principle that limits a search incident to a lawful custodial arrest may be stated clearly enough, courts have discovered the principle difficult to apply in specific cases. Yet, as one commentator has pointed out, the protection of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments “can only be realized if the police are acting under a set of rules which, in most instances, makes it possible to reach a correct determination beforehand as to whether an invasion of privacy is justified in the interest of law enforcement.” LaFave, “Case-By-Case Adjudication” versus “Standardized Procedures”: The Robinson Dilemma, 1974 S. Ct. Rev. 127, 142. This is because

“Fourth Amendment doctrine, given force and effect by the exclusionary rule, is primarily intended to regulate the police in their day-to-day activities and thus ought to be expressed in terms that are readily applicable by the police in the context of the law enforcement activities in which they are necessarily engaged. A highly sophisticated set of rules, qualified by all sorts of ifs, ands, and buts and requiring the drawing of subtle nuances and hairline distinctions, may be the sort of heady stuff upon which the facile minds of lawyers and judges eagerly feed, but they may be 'literally impossible of application by the officer in the field.’ ” Id., at 141.

In short, “[a] single familiar standard is essential to guide police officers, who have only limited time and expertise to reflect on and balance the social and individual interests involved in the specific circumstances they confront.” Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 213-214.

So it was that, in United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, the Court hewed to a straightforward rule, easily applied, and predictably enforced: “[I]n the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a 'reasonable’ search under that Amendment.” Id., at 235. In so holding, the Court rejected the suggestion that “there must be litigated in each case the issue of whether or not there was present one of the reasons supporting the authority for a search of the person incident to a lawful arrest.” Ibid.

But no straightforward rule has emerged from the litigated cases respecting the question involved here — the question of the proper scope of a search of the interior of an automobile incident to a lawful custodial arrest of its occupants. The difficulty courts have had is reflected in the conflicting views of the New York judges who dealt with the problem in the present case, and is confirmed by a look at even a small sample drawn from the narrow class of cases in which courts have decided whether, in the course of a search incident to the lawful custodial arrest of the occupants of an automobile, police may search inside the automobile after the arrestees are no longer in it. On the one hand, decisions in cases such as United States v. Sanders, 631 F. 2d 1309 (CA8 1980); United States v. Dixon, 558 F. 2d 919 (CA9 1977); and United States v. Frick, 490 F. 2d 666 (CA5 1973), have upheld such warrantless searches as incident to lawful arrests. On the other hand, in cases such as United States v. Benson, 631 F. 2d 1336 (CA8 1980), and United States v. Rigales, 630 F. 2d 364 (CA5 1980), such searches, in comparable factual circumstances, have been held constitutionally invalid.

When a person cannot know how a court will apply a settled principle to a recurring factual situation, that person cannot know the scope of his constitutional protection, nor can a policeman know the scope of his authority. While the Chimel case established that a search incident to an arrest may not stray beyond the area within the immediate control of the arrestee, courts have found no workable definition of “the area within the immediate control of the arrestee” when that area arguably includes the interior of an automobile and the arrestee is its recent occupant. Our reading of the cases suggests the generalization that articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, even if not inevitably, within “the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary ite[m].” Chimel, 395 U. S., at 763. In order to establish the workable rule this category of cases requires, we read Chimel’s definition of the limits of the area that may be searched in light of that generalization. Accordingly, we hold that when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.

It follows from this conclusion that the police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment, for if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach. United States v. Robinson, supra; Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307. Such a container may, of course, be searched whether it is open or closed, since the justification for the search is not that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the container, but that the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have. Thus, while the Court in Chimel held that the police could not search all the drawers in an arrestee’s house simply because the police had arrested him at home, the Court noted that drawers within an arrestee’s reach could be searched because of the danger their contents might pose to the police. 395 U. S., at 763.

It is true, of course, that these containers will sometimes be such that they could hold neither a weapon nor evidence of the criminal conduct for which the suspect was arrested. However, in United States v. Robinson, the Court rejected the argument that such a container — there a “crumpled up' cigarette package” — located during a search of Robinson incident to his arrest could not be searched: “The authority to search the person incident to a lawful custodial arrest, while based upon the need to disarm and to discover evidence, does not depend on what a court may later decide was the probability in a particular arrest situation that weapons or evidence would in fact be found upon the person of the suspect. A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.” 414 U. S., at 235.

The New York Court of Appeals relied upon United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, and Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753, in concluding that the search and seizure in the present case were constitutionally invalid. But neither of those cases involved an arguably valid search incident to a lawful custodial arrest. As the Court pointed out in the Chadwick case: “Here the search was conducted more than an hour after federal agents had gained exclusive control of the footlocker and long after respondents were securely in custody; the search therefore cannot be viewed as incidental to the arrest or as justified by any other exigency.” 433 U. S., at 15. And in the Sanders case, the Court explicitly stated that it did not “consider the constitutionality of searches of luggage incident to the arrest of its possessor. See, e. g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973). The State has not argued that respondent’s suitcase was searched incident to his arrest, and it appears that the bag was not within his ‘immediate control’ at the time of the search.” 442 U. S., at 764, n. 11. (The suitcase in question was in the trunk of the taxicab. See n. 4, supra.)

Ill

It is not questioned that the respondent was the subject of a lawful custodial arrest on a charge of possessing marihuana. The search of the respondent’s jacket followed immediately upon that arrest. The jacket was located inside the passenger compartment of the car in which the respondent had been a passenger just before he was arrested. The jacket was. thus within the area which we have concluded was “within the arrestee’s immediate control” within the meaning of the Chimel case. The search of the jacket, therefore, was a search incident to a lawful custodial arrest, and it did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Rehnquist,

concurring.

Because it is apparent that a majority of the Court is unwilling to overrule Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), and because the Court does not find it necessary to consider the “automobile exception” in its disposition of this case, ante, at 462-463, n. 6, see Robbins v. California, ante, p. 437 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting), I join the opinion of the Court.

Justice Stevens,

concurring in the judgment.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Robbins v. California, ante, p. 444, I agree with Justice Brennan, Justice White, Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Rehnquist that these two cases should be decided in the same way, and I also agree with The Chief Justice, Justice Stewart, Justice Blackmun, Justice Powell, and Justice Rehnquist that this judgment should be reversed.

Justice Brennan,

with whom Justice Marshall joins, dissenting.

In Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), this Court carefully analyzed more than 50 years of conflicting precedent governing the permissible scope of warrantless searches incident to custodial arrest. The Court today turns its back on the product of that analysis, formulating an arbitrary “bright-fine” rule applicable to “recent” occupants of automobiles that fails to reflect Chimel’s underlying policy justifications. While the Court claims to leave Chimel intact, see ante, at 460, n. 3,1 fear that its unwarranted abandonment of the principles underlying that decision may signal a wholesale retreat from our carefully developed search-incident-to-arrest analysis. I dissent.

I

It has long been a fundamental principle of Fourth Amendment analysis that exceptions to the warrant requirement are to be narrowly construed. Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753, 759-760 (1979); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 393-394 (1978); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 454-455 (1971); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U. S. 30, 34 (1970); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967); Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 499 (1958). Predicated on the Fourth Amendment’s essential purpose of “shield[ing] the citizen from unwarranted intrusions into his privacy,” Jones v. United States, supra, at 498, this principle carries with it two corollaries. First, for a search to be valid under the Fourth Amendment, it must be “ ‘strictly tied to and justified by’ the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 19 (1968), quoting Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 310 (1967) (Fortas, J., concurring). See Chimel v. California, supra, at 762; Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 295 (1973). Second, in determining whether to grant an exception to the warrant requirement, courts should carefully consider the facts and circumstances of each search and seizure, focusing on the reasons supporting the exception rather than on any bright-line rule of general application. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 59 (1968); Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964).

The Chimel exception to the warrant requirement was designed with two principal concerns in mind: the safety of the arresting officer and the preservation of easily concealed or destructible evidence. Recognizing that a suspect might have access to weapons or contraband at the time of arrest, the Court declared:

"When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule.” 395 IT. S., at 762-763.

The Chimel standard was narrowly tailored to address these concerns: it permits police officers who have effected a custodial arrest to conduct a warrantless search “of the ar-restee’s person and the area 'within his immediate control’— construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Id., at 763. It thus places a temporal and a spatial limitation on searches incident to arrest, excusing compliance with the warrant requirement only when the search “ ‘is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest.’ ” Shipley v. California, 395 U. S. 818, 819 (1969), quoting Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483, 486 (1964). See United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 14-15 (1977); Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U. S. 216, 220 (1968); Preston v. United States, supra, at 367; United States v. Edwards, 415 U. S. 800, 810 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting). When the arrest has been consummated and the arrestee safely taken into custody, the justifications underlying Chimel's limited exception to the warrant requirement cease to apply: at that point there is no possibility that the arrestee could reach weapons or contraband. See Chimel v. California, supra, at 764.

In its attempt to formulate a 'single, familiar standard . . . to guide police officers, who have only limited time and expertise to reflect on and balance the social and individual interests involved in the specific circumstances they confront/ ” ante, at 458, quoting Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 213-214 (1979), the Court today disregards these principles, and instead adopts a fiction — that the interior of a car is always within the immediate control of an arrestee who has recently been in the car. The Court thus holds:

“[W]hen a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile . . . [and] may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment . . . Ante, at 460.

In so holding, the Court ignores both precedent and principle and fails to achieve its objective of providing police officers with a more workable standard for determining the permissible scope of searches incident to arrest.

II

As the facts of this case make clear, the Court today substantially expands the permissible scope of searches incident to arrest by permitting police officers to search areas and containers the arrestee could not possibly reach at the time of arrest. These facts demonstrate that at the time Belton and his three companions were placed under custodial arrest— which was after they had been removed from the car, patted down, and separated — none of them could have reached the jackets that had been left on the back seat of the car. The New York Court of Appeals described the sequence of events as follows:

“On April 9, 1978, defendant and three companions were traveling on the New York State Thruway in Ontario County when their car was stopped by a State trooper for speeding. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer smelled the distinct odor of marihuana emanating from within and observed on the floor an envelope which he recognized as a type that is.commonly used to sell the substance. At that point the officer ordered the occupants out of the vehicle, patted each down, removed the envelope from the floor and ascertained that it contained a small amount of marihuana.
“After the marihuana was found, the individuals, still standing outside the car, were placed under arrest. The officer then re-entered the vehicle, searched the passenger compartment and seized the marihuana cigarette butts lying in the ashtrays. He also rifled through the pockets of five jackets on the hack seat. Upon opening the zippered pocket of one of them, he discovered a small amount of cocaine and defendant’s identification.” 50 N. Y. 2d 447, 449, 407 N. E. 2d 420, 421 (1980) (emphasis added).

Concluding that a “warrantless search of the zippered pockets of an unaccessible jacket may not be upheld as a search incident to a lawful arrest where there is no longer any danger that the arrestee or a confederate might gain access to the article,” ibid, (emphasis added), the court further stated:

“One searches the record in vain for support of the dissenter’s claim that at the time of the arrest — the point from which the predicate for the warrantless search is measured — 'the jackets were within reach of the four suspects and had not yet been reduced to the exclusive control of the officer.’ ” Id., at 452, n. 2, 407 N. E. 2d, at 423, n. 2, quoting id., at 454, 407 N. E. 2d, at 424 (dissenting opinion).

By approving the constitutionality of the warrantless search in this case, the Court carves out a dangerous precedent that is not justified by the concerns underlying Chimel. Disregarding the principle “that the scope of a warrantless search must be commensurate with the rationale that excepts the search from the warrant requirement,” Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S., at 295, the Court for the first time grants police officers authority to conduct a warrantless “area” search under circumstances where there is no chance that the arrestee “might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Chimel v. California, 395 U. S., at 763. Under the approach taken today, the result would presumably be the same even if Officer Nicot had handcuffed Belton and his companions in the patrol car before placing them under arrest, and even if his search had extended to locked luggage or other inaccessible containers located in the back seat of the car.

This expansion of the Chimel exception is both analytically unsound and inconsistent with every significant search-incident-to-arrest case we have decided in which the issue was whether the police could lawfully conduct a warrantless search of the area surrounding the arrestee. See, e. g., United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S., at 15 (search of footlocker “conducted more than an hour after federal agents had gained exclusive control of the footlocker and long after respondents were securely in custody” not incident to arrest); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S., at 456-457, and n. 11 (search of car in driveway not incident to arrest in house); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 47 (1970) (warrantless search of car invalid once arrestee has been placed in police custody); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U. S., at 35 (area of immediate control does not extend to inside of house when suspect is arrested on front step); Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U. S., at 220 (search of car after occupant placed in custody and taken to courthouse not valid as incident to arrest); Preston v. United States, 376 U. S., at 368 (search of car not valid as incident to arrest: although suspects were in car when arrested, they were in custody at police station when car was searched). These cases demonstrate that the crucial question under Chimel is not whether the arrestee could ever have reached the area that was searched, but whether he could have reached it at the time of arrest and search. If not, the officer’s failure to obtain a warrant may not be excused. By disregarding this settled doctrine, the Court does a great disservice not only to stare decisis, but to the policies underlying the Fourth Amendment as well.

111

The Court seeks to justify its departure from the principles underlying Chimel by proclaiming the need for a new “bright-line” rule to guide the officer in the field. As we pointed out in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S., at 393, however, “the mere fact that law enforcement may be made more efficient can never by itself justify disregard of the Fourth Amendment.” Moreover, the Court’s attempt to forge a “bright-line” rule fails on its own terms. While the “interior/trunk” distinction may provide a workable guide in certain routine cases— for example, where the officer arrests the driver of a car and then immediately searches the seats and floor — in the long run, I suspect it will create far more problems than it solves. The Court’s new approach leaves open too many questions and, more important, it provides the police and the courts with too few tools with which to find the answers.

Thus, although the Court concludes that a warrantless search of a car may take place even though the suspect was arrested outside the car, it does not indicate how long after the suspect’s arrest that search may validly be conducted. Would a warrantless search incident to arrest be valid if conducted five minutes after the suspect left his car? Thirty minutes? Three hours? Does it matter whether the suspect is standing in close proximity to the car when the search is conducted? Does it matter whether the police formed probable cause to arrest before or after the suspect left his car? And why is the rule announced today necessarily limited to searches of cars? What if a suspect is seen walking out of a house where the police, peering in from outside, had formed probable cause to believe a crime was being committed? Could the police then arrest that suspect and enter the house to conduct a search incident to arrest? Even assuming today’s rule is limited to searches of the “interior” of cars — an assumption not demanded by logic — what is meant by “interior”? Does it include locked glove compartments, the interior of door panels, or the area under the floorboards? Are special rules necessary for station wagons and hatchbacks, where the luggage compartment may be reached through the interior, or taxicabs, where a glass panel might separate the driver’s compartment from the rest of the car? Are the only containers that may be searched those that are large enough to be “capable of holding another object”? Or does the new rule apply to any container, even if it “could hold neither a weapon nor evidence of the criminal conduct for which the suspect was arrested”? Compare ante, at 460-461, n. 4, with ante, at 461.

The Court does not give the police any “bright-line” answers to these questions. More important, because the Court’s new rule abandons the justifications underlying Chimel, it offers no guidance to the police officer seeking to work out these answers for himself. As we warned in Chimel: “No consideration relevant to the Fourth Amendment suggests any point of rational limitation, once the search is allowed to go beyond the area from which the person arrested might obtain weapons or evidentiary items.” 395 U. S., at 766. See also Mincey v. Arizona, supra, at 393. By failing to heed this warning, the Court has undermined rather than furthered the goal of consistent law enforcement: it has failed to offer any principles to guide the police and the courts in their application of the new rule to nonroutine situations.

The standard announced in Chimel is not nearly as difficult to apply as the Court suggests. To the contrary, I continue to believe that Chimel provides a sound, workable rule for determining the constitutionality of a warrantless search incident to arrest. Under Chimel, searches incident to arrest may be conducted without a warrant only if limited to the person of the arrestee, see United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973), or to the area within the arrestee’s “immediate control.” While it may be difficult in some cases to measure the exact scope of the arrestee’s immediate control, relevant factors would surely include the relative number of police officers and arrestees, the manner of restraint placed on the arrestee, and the ability of the arrestee to gain access to a particular area or container. Certainly there will be some close cases, but when in doubt the police can always turn to the rationale underlying Chimel — the need to prevent the arrestee from reaching weapons or contraband — before exercising their judgment. A rule based on that rationale should provide more guidance than the rule announced by the Court today. Moreover, unlike the Court’s rule, it would be faithful to the Fourth Amendment.

Justice White,

with whom Justice Marshall joins, dissenting.

In Robbins v. California, ante, p. 420, it was held that a wrapped container in the trunk of a car could not be searched without a warrant even though the trunk itself could be searched without a warrant because there was probable cause to search the car and even though there was probable cause to search the container as well. This was because of the separate interest in privacy with respect to the container. The Court now holds that as incident to the arrest of the driver or any other person in an automobile, the interior of the car and any container found therein, whether locked or not, may be not only seized but also searched even absent probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of crime will be found. As to luggage, briefcases, or other containers, this seems to me an extreme extension of Chimel and one to which I cannot subscribe. Even if the decision in Robbins had been otherwise and United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1 (1977), and Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753 (1979), had been overruled, luggage found in the trunk of a car could not be searched without probable cause to believe it contained contraband or evidence. Here, searches of luggage, briefcases, and other containers in the interior of an auto are authorized in the absence of any suspicion whatsoever that they contain anything in which the police have a legitimate interest. This calls for more caution than the Court today exhibits, and, with respect, I dissent.

       The state-court cases are in similar disarray. Compare, e. g., Hinkel v. Anchorage, 618 P. 2d 1069 (Alaska 1980), with Ulesky v. State, 379 So. 2d 121 (Fla. App. 1979).

       The validity of the custodial arrest of Belton has not been questioned in this case. Cf. Gustafson v. Florida 414 U. S. 260, 266 (concurring opinion).

       Our holding today does no more than determine the meaning of Chimel’s principles in this particular and problematic context. It in no way alters the fundamental principles established in the Chimel case regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests.

       “Container” here denotes any object capable of holding another object. It thus includes closed or open glove compartments, consoles, or other receptacles located anywhere within the passenger compartment, as well as luggage, boxes, bags, clothing, and the like. Our holding encompasses only the interior of the passenger compartment of an automobile and does not encompass the trunk.

       It seems to have been the theory of the Court of Appeals that the search and seizure in the present case could not have been incident to the respondent’s arrest, because Trooper Nicot, by the very act of searching the respondent’s jacket and seizing the contents of its pocket, had gained “exclusive control” of them. 50 N. Y. 2d 447, 451, 407 N. E. 2d 420, 422. But under this fallacious theory no search or seizure incident to a lawful custodial arrest would ever be valid; by seizing an article even on the arrestee’s person, an officer may be said to have reduced that article to his “exclusive control.”

       Because of this disposition of the case, there is no need here to consider whether the search and seizure were permissible under the so-called “automobile exception.” Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42; Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132.

       As we noted in Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 357 (1931): “There is no formula for the determination of reasonableness. Each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.”

       “ 'Once an accused is under arrest and in custody, then a search made at another place, without a warrant, is simply not incident to the arrest.’ ” Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 47 (1970), quoting Preston v. United States, 376 U. S., at 367.

       See also 50 N. Y. 2d, at 454, n. 2, 407 N. E. 2d, at 423, n. 2; Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-5; App. A-36.

       “ ‘We cannot be true to [the Fourth Amendment] and excuse the absence of a search warrant without a showing by those who seek exemption from the constitutional mandate that the exigencies of the situation make that course imperative.’ ” Chimel v. California, 395 U. S., at 761, quoting McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 456 (1948).

       The Court sets up a strawman when it claims that under the “exclusive control” approach taken by the Court of Appeals, “no search or seizure incident to a lawful custodial arrest would ever be valid; by seizing an article even on the arrestee’s person, an officer may be said to have reduced that article to his ‘exclusive control.’ ” Ante, at 461-462, n. 5. If a police officer could obtain exclusive control of an article by simply holding it in his hand, I would certainly agree with the Court. But as we recognized in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 14-15 (1977), exclusive control means more than that. It means sufficient control such that there is no significant risk that the arrestee or his confederates “might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Chimel v. California, 395 U. S., at 763. The issue of exclusive control presents a question of fact to be decided under the circumstances of each case, just as the New York Court of Appeals has decided it here.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Powell Justice Blackmun,

license: Public Domain

text:
    GULF OFFSHORE CO., A DIVISION OF POOL CO. v. MOBIL OIL CORP. et al.
    No. 80-590.
    Argued March 31, 1981
    Decided July 1, 1981

      Powell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and White, Rehnquist, and SteveNS, JJ., joined, and in Parts I and II of which BrenNAN, Marshall, and BlackmuN, JJ., joined. BlackmuN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the result, in which BrenNAN and Marshall, JJ., joined, post, p. 488. Stewart, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Charles D. Kennedy argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Bradley A. Jackson.

      Frank E. Catón argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent Mobil Oil Corp. Joseph D. Jamail argued the cause for respondent Gaedecke. With him on the brief were Gus Kolius, John B. Neibel, and Nat B. King.

   Justice Powell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to determine whether federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over personal injury and indemnity cases arising under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 67 Stat. 462, as amended, 43 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. III). We also consider whether the rule of Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Liepelt, 444 U. S. 490 (1980), that the jury be instructed that personal injury damages awards are not subject to federal income taxation, is applicable to such a case.

I

Respondent, Mobil Oil Corp., contracted with petitioner, Gulf Offshore Co., for the latter to perform certain completion operations on oil drilling platforms offshore of Louisiana. As part of the agreement, petitioner promised to indemnify Mobil for all claims resulting directly or indirectly from the work. While the work was in progress in September 1975, the advent of Hurricane Eloise required that workers be evacuated from oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.

Steven Gaedecke was an employee of petitioner working on an oil drilling platform above the seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf. As the storm approached, a boat chartered by Mobil took him safely aboard. Shortly thereafter, while assisting crewmen attempting to evacuate other workers from the platforms in turbulent sea, he was washed across the deck of the vessel by a wave. He suffered injuries primarily to his back.

Gaedecke brought this suit for damages in the District Court of Harris County, a Texas state court, alleging negligence by Mobil and the boatowner. Mobil filed a third-party complaint for indemnification against petitioner. In its third-party answer, petitioner denied that the state court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint. Petitioner argued that Mobil’s cause of action arose under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), and that OCSLA vested exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction in a United States district court. The Texas trial court rejected this contention, and the case went to trial before a jury.

In submitting the case to the jury, the trial court denied a request by petitioner to instruct them that personal injury damages awards are not subject to federal income taxation and that they should not increase or decrease an award in contemplation of tax consequences. The jury found Mobil negligent and awarded Gaedecke $900,000 for his injuries. The jury also found, however, that Gaedecke sustained his injuries while performing work subject to the contract of indemnification. Based on the two verdicts, the trial judge entered judgment against petitioner in the amount of $900,000.

The Texas Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 594 S. W. 2d 496 (1979). It held that the Texas state courts had subject-matter jurisdiction over the causes of action. It acknowledged that OCSLA governed the case, but found no explicit command in the Act that federal-court jurisdiction be exclusive. The court also observed that exclusive federal-court jurisdiction was unnecesary because the Act incorporates as federal law in personal injury actions the laws of the State adjacent to the scene of the events, when not inconsistent with other federal laws. 43 U. S. C. § 1333 (a)(2). Thus, the court reasoned, “[t]he end result would be an application of the same laws no matter where the forum was located, whether state or federal.” 594 S. W. 2d, at 502. The court also held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that damages awards are not subject to federal income taxation. The Texas Supreme Court denied review.

We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict over whether federal courts have exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over suits arising under OCSLA and to consider whether an instruction that damages are not taxable is appropriate in such a case. 449 IT. S. 1033 (1980).

II

A

The general principle of state-court jurisdiction over cases arising under federal laws is straightforward: state courts may assume subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal cause of action absent provision by Congress to the contrary or disabling incompatibility between the federal claim and state-court adjudication. Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502, 507-508 (1962); Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, 136 (1876). This rule is premised on the relation between the States and the National Government within our federal system. See The Federalist No. 82 (Hamilton). The two exercise concurrent sovereignty, although the Constitution limits the powers of each and requires the States to recognize federal law as paramount. Federal law confers rights binding on state courts, the subject-matter jurisdiction of which is governed in the first instance by state laws.

In considering the propriety of state-court jurisdiction over any particular federal claim, the Court begins with the presumption that state courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction. See California v. Arizona, 440 U. S. 59, 66-67 (1979); Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S., at 507-508. Congress, however, may confine jurisdiction to the federal courts either explicitly or implicitly. Thus, the presumption of concurrent jurisdiction can be rebutted by an explicit statutory directive, by unmistakable implication from legislative history, or by a clear incompatibility between state-court jurisdiction and federal interests. See ibid.; Claflin, supra, at 137. See also Garner v. Teamsters, 346 U. S. 485 (1953) (grievance within jurisdiction of National Labor Relations Board to prevent unfair labor practice not subject to relief by injunction in state court).

B

No one argues that Congress explicitly granted federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising under OCSLA. Congress did grant United States district courts “original jurisdiction of cases and controversies arising out of or in connection with any operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf . . . 43 U. S. C. § 1333 (b). It is black letter law, however, that the mere grant of jurisdiction to a federal court does not operate to oust a state court from concurrent jurisdiction over the cause of action. United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 296 U. S. 463, 479 (1936).

OCSLA declares the Outer Continental Shelf to be an area of “exclusive federal jurisdiction.” 43 U. S. C. § 1333 (a) (1). Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97, 100 (1971). Petitioner does contend that the assertion of exclusive political jurisdiction over the Shelf evinces a congressional intent that federal courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction over controversies arising from operations on the Shelf. See Fluor Ocean Services, Inc. v. Rucker Co., 341 F. Supp. 757, 760 (ED La. 1972). This argument is premised on a perceived incompatibility between exclusive federal sovereignty over the Outer Continental Shelf and state-court jurisdiction over controversies relating to the Shelf. We think petitioner mistakes the purpose of OCSLA and the policies necessitating exclusive federal-court jurisdiction.

OCSLA extends the “Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the United States” to the subsoil and seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf and to “artificial islands and fixed structures” built for discovery, extraction, and transportation of minerals. 43 U. S. C. § 1333 (a)(1). All law applicable to the Outer Continental Shelf is federal law, but to fill the substantial “gaps” in the coverage of federal law, OCSLA borrows the “applicable and not inconsistent” laws of the adjacent States as surrogate federal law. § 1333 (a) (2); Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty Co., 395 U. S. 352, 355-359 (1969). Thus, a personal injury action involving events occurring on the Shelf is governed by federal law, the content of which is borrowed from the law of the adjacent State, here Louisiana. See id., at 362-365. Cf. United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U. S. 715 (1979) (state law incorporated as federal common law concerning priority of liens created by federal law).

The OCSLA plan is not inimical to state-court jurisdiction over personal injury actions. Nothing inherent in exclusive federal sovereignty over a territory precludes a state court from entertaining a personal injury suit concerning events occurring in the territory and governed by federal law. Ohio River Contract Co. v. Cordon, 244 U. S. 68 (1917). See 16 U. S. C. § 457 (personal injury and wrongful-death actions involving events occurring “within a national park or other place subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within the exterior boundaries of any State” shall be maintained as if the place were under the jurisdiction of the State). Cf. Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S. 419, 424 (1970) (residents of an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction within a State are “subject to the process and jurisdiction of state courts”). “The judiciary power of every government looks beyond its own local or municipal laws, and in civil cases lays hold of all subjects of litigation between parties within its jurisdiction, though the causes of dispute are relative to the laws of the most distant part of the globe.” The Federalist No. 82, p. 514 (H. Lodge ed. 1908) (Hamilton), quoted in Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S., at 138. State courts routinely exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over civil cases arising from events in other States and governed by the other States’ laws. See, e. g., Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 11 (1881). Cf. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U. S. 302 (1981). That the location of the event giving rise to the suit is an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction rather than another State, does not introduce any new limitation on the forum State’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon, supra, at 72.

Section 1333 (a) (3) provides that “adoption of State law as the law of the United States shall never be interpreted as a basis for claiming any interest in or jurisdiction on behalf of any State for any purpose over the seabed and subsoil of the outer Continental Shelf, or the property and natural resources thereof or the revenues therefrom.” Petitioner argues that state-court jurisdiction over this personal injury case would contravene this provision. This argument again confuses the political jurisdiction of a State with its judicial jurisdiction. Section 1333 (a)(3) speaks to the geographic boundaries of state sovereignty, because Congress primarily was concerned in enacting OCSLA to assure federal control over the Shelf and its resources. See n. 7, supra. The language of the provision refers to “any interest in or jurisdiction over” real property, minerals, and revenues, not over causes of action. Indeed, opponents of OCSLA urged Congress to extend the political boundaries of the States seaward over the Shelf, at least for some purposes. See 99 Cong. Rec. 7230 (remarks of Sen. Ellender), 7232 (remarks of Sen. Long) (1953). The Senate Report explains that § 1333 (a)(3) was intended to make plain that the adoption of state law as federal law cannot be the basis for a claim by the State “for participation in the administration of or revenues from the areas outside of State boundaries.” 1953 S. Rep., at 23.

We do not think the legislative history of OCSLA can be read to rebut the presumption of concurrent state-court jurisdiction, given Congress’ silence on the subject in the statute itself. Petitioner relies principally on criticisms by the two Senators from Louisiana, Ellender and Long, who opposed the bill that eventually became OCSLA. Yet “[t]he fears and doubts of the opposition are no authoritative guide to the construction of legislation.” Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384, 394 (1951). Moreover, the amendments offered by the Senators sought to confer political control over the Shelf and its mineral wealth on the States, not jurisdiction on the state courts over OCSLA cases. See 99 Cong. Rec. 7230 (Sen. Ellender), 7232 (Sen. Long) (1953).

C

The operation of OCSLA will not be frustrated by state-court jurisdiction over personal injury actions. The factors generally recommending exclusive federal-court jurisdiction over an area of federal law include the desirability of uniform interpretation, the expertise of federal judges in federal law, and the assumed greater hospitality of federal courts to peculiarly federal claims. These factors cannot support exclusive federal jurisdiction over claims whose governing rules are borrowed from state law. There is no need for uniform interpretation of laws that vary from State to State. State judges have greater expertise in applying these laws and certainly cannot be thought unsympathetic to a claim only because it is labeled federal rather than state law.

Allowing personal injury and contract actions in state courts will advance interests identified by Congress in enacting OCSLA. A recurring consideration in the deliberations leading to enactment was “the special relationship between the men working on these [platforms] and the adjacent shore to which they commute to visit their families.” Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty Co., 395 U. S., at 365. Allowing state-court jurisdiction over these cases will allow these workers, and their lawyers, to pursue individual claims in familiar, convenient, and possibly less expensive fora. See Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S., at 103 (state statute of limitations applies to personal injury actions arising under OCSLA).

In summary, nothing in the language, structure, legislative history, or underlying policies of OCSLA suggests that Congress intended federal courts to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over personal injury actions arising under OCSLA. The Texas courts had jurisdiction over this case.

Ill

The Court of Civil Appeals held that petitioner was not entitled to an instruction cautioning the jury that personal injury damages awards are not subject to federal income taxation, § 104 (a) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. §104 (a)(2). In so ruling the court relied on Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co., 510 F. 2d 234, 236-237 (CA5) (en banc) (per curiam), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 839 (1975), a Jones Act case where the Court of Appeals prohibited presenting evidence or instructing the jury as to the impact of taxes on damages awards based on lost wages. This Court subsequently held that a defendant in a suit brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq., is entitled to an instruction that damages for lost future wages are not subject to federal income taxation. Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Liepelt, 444 U. S. 490 (1980). Petitioner now argues that Liepelt applies to an OCSLA personal injury action and that this case should be remanded for a new trial on damages before a properly instructed jury.

Our first task is to determine the source of law that will govern whether such an instruction must be available in an OCSLA case. OCSLA, as discussed above, mandates that state laws apply as federal laws “[t]o the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent with this subchapter or with other Federal laws.” 43 U. S. C. § 1333 (a)(2). In any particular case, the adjacent State’s law applies to those areas “which would be within the area of the State if its boundaries were extended seaward to the outer margin of the outer Continental Shelf . . . Ibid. The statute thus contains air explicit choice-of-law provision. See n. 8, supra. The parties agree that the substantive law of Louisiana applies to this case, unless it is inconsistent with federal law.

To apply the statutory directive a court must consider the content of both potentially applicable federal and state law. Subsequent to the decision of the Texas court, as noted above, we held in Liepelt, supra, that a defendant in an FELA case is entitled to an instruction that damages awards are not subject to federal income taxation. As FELA afforded no guidance on this issue, the holding articulated a federal common-law rule. The purpose was to eliminate from the deliberations of juries “an area of doubt or speculation that might have an improper impact on the computation of the amount of damages.” 444 U. S., at 498. Thus, the instruction furthers strong federal policies of fairness and efficiency in litigation of federal claims. If Congress had been silent about the source of federal law in an OCSLA personal injury case, Liepelt would require that the instruction be given.

But Congress was not silent. It incorporated for this case the applicable law of Louisiana, but only “[t]o the extent [it is] not inconsistent” with federal law. The statute does not distinguish between federal statutory and judge-made law. It would seem then that if Louisiana law is “inconsistent,” Liepelt controls. Doubt arises, however, because in OCSLA Congress borrowed a remedy provided by state law and thereby “specifically rejected national uniformity” as a paramount goal. Chevron Oil v. Huson, 404 U. S., at 104. In Chevron, we held that Louisiana rather than federal common law provided the federal statute of limitations for personal injury damages actions under OCSLA. We recognized that “Congress made clear provision for filling the ‘gaps’ in federal law; it did not intend that federal courts fill those 'gaps’ themselves by creating new federal common law.” Id., at 104M05. In this case, we face an analogous question: does the incorporation of state law preclude a court from finding that state law is “inconsistent” with a federal common-law rule generally applicable to federal damages actions?

We need answer this question only if Louisiana law would not require that the instruction be given upon timely request. The court below never addressed this question but relied solely on federal case law now superseded. Under these circumstances it is the better practice to remand this case to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals for a determination of whether Louisiana law requires the instruction and, if it does not, whether Liepelt displaces the state rule in an OCSLA case. If the court decides that it was error to refuse the instruction, it may then address respondents’ argument that petitioner was not prejudiced by the error.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Justice Blackmun,

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

I join the Court’s opinion as to Parts I and II, and I concur in the decision to remand this case for further proceedings as to the applicability of the rule adopted in Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Liepelt, 444 U. S. 490 (1980). I write separately because I have reservations about the Court’s expressed intention to apply the Liepelt rule expansively, a ruling I consider unwise and unnecessary to this case in its present posture.

As the Court makes clear, ante, at 488, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals on remand must determine, first, what Louisiana law requires as to this form of instruction, and, second, whether that state rule is “inconsistent” with OCSLA or “other Federal laws.” 43 U. S. C. § 1333 (a)(2). The Court acknowledges, and I agree, that the choice-of-law provision contained in OCSLA creates “[d]oubt,” ante, at 487, as to whether Congress intended state law or' federal law to govern the grant of this instruction. As I understand OCSLA, the purpose of incorporating state law was to permit actions arising on these federal lands to be determined by rules essentially the same as those applicable to actions arising on the bordering state lands. Congress apparently intended to provide a kind of local uniformity of result, regardless of whether the action arose on shelf lands or on neighboring state lands. I would read the statute, thus, to encourage use of state law, and I would permit the state court to weigh, as an initial matter and only if the Louisiana rule differs from the Liepelt rule, whether Congress’ desire for local uniformity outweighs any perceived need, as a matter of federal common law, for the instruction. I do not find it self-evident that Liepelt created a general “federal common-law rule” that so greatly “furthers strong federal policies of fairness and efficiency in litigation of federal claims,” ante, at 486, 487, as to require its application in cases governed by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. In my view, this question was not settled in Liepelt, and it remains open for future adjudication.

       Mobil claimed indemnification on the grounds of both its contract with petitioner and the allegation that petitioner’s negligence caused the accident. Prior to trial Gaedecke entered into a conditional settlement agreement with Mobil, which limited his potential recovery against Mobil to $200,000; in return Mobil agreed to proceed against petitioner for indemnification only on the basis of the contract. Gaedecke also settled his claim with the boatowner.

       Texas had in personam jurisdiction over Mobil and petitioner, each of whom does business in Texas. Gaedecke was a resident of Harris County, Tex.

       See Pool v. Kemper Ins. Group, 386 So. 2d 1006 (La. App. 1980) ; Friedrich v. Whittaker Corp., 467 F. Supp. 1012 (SD Tex. 1979); Gravois v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 173 So. 2d 550 (La. App. 1965). See also Fluor Ocean Services, Inc. v. Rucker Co., 341 F. Supp. 757, 760 (ED La. 1972).

       Permitting state courts to entertain federal causes of action facilitates the enforcement of federal rights. If Congress does not confer jurisdiction on federal courts to hear a particular federal claim, the state courts stand ready to vindicate the federal right, subject always to review, of course, in this Court. See Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 346-348 (1816). This practical concern was more important before the statutory creation in 1875 of general federal-question jurisdiction.

       Congress amended and recodified the jurisdictional provisions of OCSLA in 1978, without effecting any change that casts light on the issue of exclusive federal-court jurisdiction before us today. Pub. L. 95-372, Title II, §208 (b), 92 Stat. 657. See S. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1091, p. 114 (1978). But cf. Pub. L. 95-372, Title II, §208 (a)(2)(B), 92 Stat. 657 (contemplating suit by the Attorney General in state court to remedy violations of the Act). The grant of jurisdiction to a federal district court is now codified at 43 U. S. C. § 1349 (b)(1) (1976 ed., Supp. III). In this opinion, we employ the Code citations prior to the recodification.

       This principle defeats petitioner’s reliance on the provision in § 1333 (a) (2): “All of such applicable laws shall be administered and enforced by the appropriate officers and courts of the United States.” The phrase “such applicable laws” refers to the laws of the adjacent States, which § 1333 (a) (2) incorporates as federal law for the Outer Continental Shelf. See infra, at 480-481. The language relied upon merely makes clear that these borrowed state laws are to be enforced like other federal laws, and nothing indicates an intent to exclude state courts from the subject-matter jurisdiction they exercise generally over federal claims.

       The legislative history confirms that the purpose of OCSLA was “to assert the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the Federal Government of the United States over the seabed and subsoil of the outer Continental Shelf, and to provide for the development of its vast mineral resources.” S. Rep. No. 411, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1953) (hereinafter 1953 S. Rep.). Congress enacted OCSLA in the wake of decisions by this Court that the Federal Government enjoyed sovereignty and ownership of the seabed and subsoil of the Outer Continental Shelf to the exclusion of adjacent States. See United States v. Texas, 339 U. S. 707 (1950); United States v. Louisiana, 339 U. S. 699 (1950). See also United States
        v. California, 332 U. S. 19 (1947). See generally Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 730 (1981). Congress chose to retain exclusive federal control of the administration of the Shelf because it underlay the high seas and the assertion of sovereignty there implicated the foreign policies of the Nation. See 1953 S. Rep., at 6. Much of OCSLA provides a federal framework for the granting of leases for exploration and extraction of minerals from the submerged lands of the Shelf. See 43 U. S. C. §§ 1334^1343.
      Congress was not unaware, however, of the close, longstanding relationship between the Shelf and the adjacent. States. See 1953 S. Rep., at 6. This concern manifested itself primarily in the incorporation of the law of adjacent States to fill gaps in federal law. See Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty Co., 395 U. S. 352, 365 (1969). It should be emphasized that this case only involves state-court jurisdiction over actions based on incorporated state law. We express no opinion on whether state courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction over actions based on the substantive provisions of OCSLA.

       OCSLA does supersede the normal choice-of-law rules that the forum would apply. See Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97, 102-103 (1971). It also provides where proper venue will be found: “in the judicial district in which any defendant resides or may be found, or in the judicial district of the State nearest the place the cause of action arose.” 43 U. S. C. §1349 (b)(1) (1976 ed., Supp. III).

       Petitioner also relies on a report made to the Senate Committee by the Department of Justice, which argued that the Federal Government should “have the exclusive control of lawmaking and law enforcement” on the Shelf. 1953 S. Rep., at 6. But Congress rejected the Department’s premise that the Shelf is “not comparable to . . . federally owned areas within a State.” Ibid. See Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty Co., 395 U. S., at 365. Section 1333 (a)(1) rather provides that the federal laws apply to the Shelf “to the same extent as if the outer Continental Shelf were an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a State.”

       Senator Long did express the fear that OCSLA placed exclusive jurisdiction over all civil suits in federal district courts. 1953 S. Rep., at 66 (minority report); 99 Cong. Rec. 7233 (1953).

       Most of the Senators’ statements regarding OCSLA’s effect on state-court jurisdiction criticize placing exclusive criminal jurisdiction in federal courts. See, e. g., id., at 7231-7232 (Sen. Ellender). But the statute that gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over federal crimes, 18 U. S. C. § 3231, has no relevance to this case.

       Exclusive federal-court jurisdiction over a cause of action generally is unnecessary to protect the parties. The plaintiff may choose the available forum he prefers, and the defendant may remove the case if it could have been brought originally in a federal court. 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (b). Also, exclusive federal jurisdiction will not prevent a state court from deciding a federal question collaterally even if it would not have subject-matter jurisdiction over a case raising the question directly. See Note, Exclusive Jurisdiction of Federal Courts in Private Civil Actions, 70 Harv. L. Rev. 509, 510 (1957).

       See Redish & Muench, Adjudication of Federal Causes of Action in State Court, 75 Mich. L. Rev. 311, 329-335 (1976); Note, 70 Harv. L. Rev., supra n. 12, at 511-515.

        Liepelt also found error in the trial court’s refusal to allow the defendant to introduce evidence showing the effect of income taxes on the plaintiff’s future earnings. 444 U. S., at 493-496. This case does not present the question whether this second holding is applicable to OCSLA cases.

       Respondents argue that we cannot address the necessity of giving the requested instruction because petitioner did not preserve its objection in the trial court in the manner required by Texas law. This argument is incorrect. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals held on the merits that petitioner was not entitled to the instruction.
      We also reject respondents’ contention that we are foreclosed from deciding the issue because petitioner did not introduce any evidence about the effect of taxation on Gaedecke’s future earnings. No evidentiary predicate is required to instruct a jury not to consider taxes.

       Respondents’ argument that Liepelt should apply prospectively only is insubstantial. Here, we address a change in the law occurring while the case is on direct appeal. "[A]n appellate court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision.” Thorpe v. Housing Authority of City of Durham, 393 U. S. 268, 281 (1969); see United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103 (1801). While there well might be an exception to the rule to prevent “manifest injustice,” Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U. S. 696, 717 (1974), this equitable exception does not reach a private civil suit where the change does not extinguish a cause of action but merely requires a retrial on damages before a properly instructed jury. Lang v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 624 F. 2d 1275, 1279-1280, and n. 9 (CA5 1980). Indeed, considerations of fairness support retroactive application: failure to give the instruction may lead to the plaintiff recovering a windfall award. Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Liepelt, supra, at 497-498.
      The overwhelming weight of authority supports retroactive application of this decision. See O’Byrne v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 632 F. 2d 1285 (CA5 1980); Flanigan v. Burlington Northern Inc., 632 F. 2d 880 (CA8 1980); Lang v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., supra; Crabtree v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 89 Ill. App. 3d 35, 411 N. E. 2d 19 (1980). Other eases have applied Liepelt retroactively without comment. Cazad v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 622 F. 2d 72 (CA4 1980); Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Yow, 384 So. 2d 13 (Ala. 1980). But see Ingle v. Illinois Central Gulf R. Co., 608 S. W. 2d 76 (Mo. App. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 916 (1981).

       The general applicability of Liepelt is indicated by the Court’s quotation with approval of the explanation of need for the instruction in Domeracki v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 443 F. 2d 1245, 1251 (CA3), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 883 (1971), a longshoreman’s action based on the unseaworthiness of a vessel.
      “ ‘We take judicial notice of the “tax consciousness” of the American public. Yet, we also recognize, as did the court in Dempsey v. Thompson, 363 Mo. 339, 251 S. W. 2d 42 (1952), that few members of the general public are aware of the special statutory exemption for personal injury awards contained in the Internal Revenue Code.
      “ ‘ “[T]here is always danger that today’s tax-conscious juries may assume (mistakenly of course) that the judgment will be taxable and therefore make their verdict big enough so that plaintiff would get what they think he deserves after the imaginary tax is taken out of it.”
      “TI Harper & James, The Law of Torts §25.12, at 1327-1328 (1956).’” Liepelt, supra, at 497.
      None of the Court’s reasoning was directed particularly at FELA.

       The Louisiana eases that have come to our attention do not provide conclusive guidance. Compare the earlier case of Guerra v. Young Construction Corp., 165 So. 2d 882 (La. App. 1964) (not error to deny the instruction), with the later cases of DeBose v. Trapani, 295 So. 2d 72 (La. App. 1974), and Francis v. Government Employers’ Ins. Co., 376 So. 2d 609 (La. App. 1979) (proper to give the instruction). These Louisiana cases were considered by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a diversity case, Croce v. Bromley Corp., 623 F. 2d 1084 (1980), cert. denied sub nom. Bromley Corp. v. Cortese, 450 U. S. 981 (1981), and it followed the holding in Guerra.