Skip to main content
Supreme Court· 4/23/2008

Virginia v. Moore

Citations

  • 553 U.S. 164
  • 128 S. Ct. 1598
  • 170 L. Ed. 2d 559
  • 2008 U.S. LEXIS 3674

About this case

Virginia v. Moore

Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that addresses use of evidence obtained by police in a search incident to an arrest if that arrest is later found to be unlawful. The arrest was unlawful because it was not permitted by state law. However, the Supreme Court held that the arrest was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; thus, the exclusionary rule did not apply.[1] [2]

Contents

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_v._Moore&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Two Portsmouth, Virginia police officers had probable cause to suspect that David Lee Moore was driving with a suspended license. Virginia state code authorizes the police to give a summons to, but not arrest, someone who is driving with a suspended license. The police, however, arrested Moore, and in a search subsequent to the arrest he was found to be carrying crack cocaine . At trial, Moore contested the state's use of the cocaine as evidence, arguing that the arrest, and therefore the search, was a violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution .

Opinion of the Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_v._Moore&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")

The Court decided unanimously in favor of Virginia. In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia that was joined by seven justices, the Court held that because the Fourth Amendment was not written with the intent to incorporate individual states' arrest statutes and because the arrest was based on probable cause, Moore had no constitutional grounds to have the evidence suppressed.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a separate concurring opinion, asserting that there was less precedent supporting the majority opinion than Justice Scalia suggested. Her main rationale for aligning with the other eight justices was based on the observation that although Moore's arrest violated state law, the Virginia statute did not specify the suppression of evidence as a consequence of this violation.

See also

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_v._Moore&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: See also")

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_v._Moore&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: References")

  1. ↑ Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008).
  2. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (April 23, 2008). "Court rules on police search" . SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 3, 2026.

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_v._Moore&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: External links")

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_v._Moore&oldid=1351944642 "

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that statutory authority is not required for a warrantless arrest to be considered constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment
  • holding that probable cause existed to arrest for driving on a suspended license under state law
  • holding that an arrest based on probable cause does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if the relevant criminal offense is non-arrestable under state law
  • holding that an officer’s violation of state law does not necessarily qualify as a federal constitutional violation
  • holding that an officer’s violation of state law does not necessarily qualify as a federal constitutional violation
  • holding that the Fourth Amendment does not require the exclusion of evidence obtained from a constitutionally permissible arrest

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Scalia, Ginsburg

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

398 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.