Justiciability
Exceptions to Mootness
Sibron v. New York (1968)
392 U.S. 40 (1968)
Decision: Reversed
Vote: 9-0
Majority: Chief Justice Warren, joined by Black, White, Fortas, Douglas, Stewart, Marshall, and Brennan
Concurrence: Douglas as to No. 63 and No. 74
Concurrence: Black as to No. 74
Concurrence: White
Concurrence: Fortas
Concurrence: Harlan
Dissenting: Black as to No. 63
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are companion cases to No. 67, Terry v. Ohio, ante, decided today …
[T]he cases [here] arise in the context of New York’s “stop-and-frisk” law, N. Y. Code Crim. Proc. § 180-a …
The appellants, Sibron and Peters, were both convicted of crimes in New York state courts on the basis of evidence seized from their persons by police officers. The Court of Appeals of New York held that the evidence was properly admitted, on the ground that the searches which uncovered it were authorized by the statute. Sibron and Peters have appealed their convictions to this Court, claiming that § 180-a is unconstitutional on its face and as construed and applied, because the searches and seizures which it was held to have authorized violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth … We noted probable jurisdiction … and consolidated the two cases for argument with No. 67 …
The facts in these cases may be stated briefly. Sibron, the appellant in No. 63, was convicted of the unlawful possession of heroin. He moved before trial to suppress …
The prosecutor’s theory at the hearing was that Patrolman Martin had probable cause to believe that Sibron was in possession of narcotics because he had seen him conversing with a number of known addicts over an eight-hour period. In the absence of any knowledge on Patrolman Martin’s part concerning the nature of the intercourse between Sibron and the addicts, however, the trial court was inclined to grant the motion to suppress …
The prosecutor, however, reminded the judge that Sibron had admitted on the stand, in Patrolman Martin’s absence, that he had been talking to the addicts about narcotics. Thereupon, the trial judge changed his mind and ruled that the officer had probable cause for an arrest. Section 180-a, the “stop-and-frisk” statute, was not mentioned at any point in the trial court. The Appellate Term of the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction without opinion. In the Court of Appeals of New York [New York’s highest court], Sibron’s case was consolidated with the Peters case, No. 74. The Court of Appeals held that the search in Peters was justified under the statute, but it wrote no opinion in Sibron’s case …
At the outset we must deal with the question whether we have jurisdiction … It is asserted that because Sibron has completed service of the six-month sentence imposed upon him as a result of his conviction, the case has become moot under St. Pierre v. United States, (1943) …
On numerous occasions in the past this Court has proc