Stevens, John Paul

Often recognized by his trademark bow ties, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (1920–) retired in 2010, after serving thirty-five years on the Court. His departure at the age of ninety left many politicians, attorneys, and court-watchers reflecting on the legacy of his tenure and the long-term impact Stevens had on civil liberties, including those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

President Gerald Ford nominated Stevens to the High Court in December 1975, after the retirement of Justice William O. Douglas. After confirmation hearings lasting two weeks, Stevens's nomination was confirmed by a Senate vote of 98–0. Before his appointment to the Supreme Court, Stevens served as a justice on the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. His record on the appellate bench has been described as mostly moderate, marked by avoidance of making political or judicial waves.

Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times reported that Stevens described himself to be “enigmatic, unpredictable, maverick, a wild card, a loner,” but his identity as one of the Court's most liberal justices did not become apparent until William Rehnquist became chief justice. Court historians surmise that it was only after the exits of liberal justices, such as William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, all of whom served on the Court in overlapping years with Stevens, that he became the most liberal judge. In comparison to later judicial appointments and decisions from Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, Stevens's decisions stand out as liberal in that they took a revisionist interpretation of the Constitution's application of civil liberties.

Stevens's reputation as a civil libertarian is visible in his opinions and dissents that tend to support the defense of the accused, particularly the incarcerated, the indigent, and those contesting governmental actions that seek to thwart individual liberty. He continues, even in retirement, to be a fierce advocate for privacy and the rule of law.

In line with the retention of personal privacy, Stevens authored the Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant, a 2009 decision that questioned the Fourth Amendment protection individuals have from unreasonable government searches and seizures of evidence. Gant was handcuffed and placed into a police vehicle before Arizona law enforcement proceeded to search his car. The search of Gant's vehicle uncovered illegal drugs in the pocket of a jacket that was in the backseat. Stevens found the search of Gant's car to be unreasonable and a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights because the suspect had been out of reach of the vehicle and not in contact with it when he was arrested and detained. Justice Stevens stated that the search of Gant's vehicle must be linked to a suspicion that arose from his arrest. “When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant,” Stevens said in the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, and Clarence Thomas.

In a 6–3 decision in California v. Acevedo (1991), again regarding vehicular searches and the Fourth Amendment, Stevens dissented. When contraband inside a container was found within Acevedo's trunk, he sought to have the evidence suppressed on the basis that no warrant had been procured prior to the search of the contents of the trunk. Stevens, joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Byron White, was troubled by the fact that no reasonable suspicion existed at the time of the stop of Acevedo that would have led police to believe he had a container in his trunk that contained contraband. The petitioner (the state of California) had set a legal standard that permits police officers to search a vehicle and its compartments if they have reasonable suspicion that a search will uncover contraband. Stevens, in dissent, criticized the petitioner, saying there was enough time for police to secure Acevedo's vehicle while getting a warrant to search the contents. Second, trunks and hidden compartments not easily visible to the eye have a greater expectation of privacy; thus, it should take more than just reasonable suspicion to search such an area. Finally, Stevens found that the personal property an individual keeps in containers within trunks or compartments are protected under the Fourth Amendment's protection of freedom from unwarranted searches.

...