Wyoming V. Houghton - Opinion of The Court - Dissent

Dissent

Justice Stevens, the author of Ross, dissented with Justices Souter and Ginsburg. He found that precedent did not dictate the result, and he noted that Ross categorically rejected the notion that the scope of a warrantless search of a vehicle might be 'defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted.' ... 'Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.' Since there was no dispute there was no probable cause to believe that Houghton's purse contained contraband, the search should have been suppressed.

The dissenters also disagreed with an effective presumption that persons in a vehicle would be holding each other's evidence or contraband.

Finally, the dissenters disagreed with elevating law enforcement interests over privacy concerns and that the two-step Fourth Amendment approach wherein the privacy and governmental interests at stake must be considered only if 18th-century common law 'yields no answer' because nothing cited by the Court mandated that approach and the Court did address the contemporary privacy interests involved. Indeed, United States v. Di Re dictated that Carroll did not permit a search of a passenger where there was no probable cause.