Should they do this, the U.S. Supreme Court would "not undertake to review the decision.".

No.

Presumably, the more conservative Burger court sought to reverse the liberal Michigan decision. Respondent, who "appeared to be under the influence … They then conducted a "protective search" of the car with the same justification: searching for weapons. The police searched the passenger compartment because they suspected Long's vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to the officers. 3. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with reasonable suspicion.

One officer saw a leather pouch containing marijuana. Two police officers, patrolling in a rural area at night, observed a car traveling erratically and at excessive speed. 463 U.S. 1032. Although this opinion helped clarify what had theretofore been ambiguous, some critics charged that Michigan v. Long was politically motivated. Long's case involved his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, stemming from his conviction for possession of marijuana. The Jurisdiction Of Federal Courts In Constitutional Cases, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 463, Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michigan_v._Long&oldid=963832009, United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, Conviction upheld, 94 Mich. App. Long met the officers at the rear of the car and did not respond to officers' repeated requests to produce his vehicle registration.

The Michigan Supreme Court … The state of Michigan then asked the Supreme Court to consider the case and it agreed, wanting to rule on the use of the Terry search on a detainee's car.

The Supreme Court, however, found that the lower court's opinion did not indicate that its decision rested on grounds in any way independent from its interpretation of federal law. Dissent. The police argued the search was conducted to protect the officers and any nearby citizens. Essentially, the Supreme Court presumed the state decision rested on federal grounds. 7. The Supreme Court not only ruled that Michigan misapplied Terry v. Ohio and the Fourth Amendment but also ruled that Long had insufficient adequate and independent state ground. The Supreme Court held that the protective search of the passenger compartment was reasonable under principles that the Supreme Court created in a prior case, Terry v. Ohio, (392 U.S. 1 (1968)). Over the years, however, some state supreme courts have based their decisions on a mixture of state and federal law, subsequently blurring the High Court's jurisdiction. See infra Section IV. The Michigan Supreme Court, however, agreed with Long and overturned his conviction. First, it allowed police to search a detainee's car without first obtaining a warrant or placing the driver under arrest, if the officers had a reasonable fear of physical harm. All Rights Reserved See infra Section V. 9. The ruling had two results. MICHIGAN v. LONG(1983) No. Looking inside the car, the officers saw a hunting knife. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Justice Stevens, for example, enumerated the ways the US Supreme Court had previously handled such ambiguities. Facts: Long was arrested, and alleged that his search and seizure rights had been violated. Long was arrested, and the police then found more marijuana in the trunk. Officers said he acted erratically and that he, "appeared to be under the influence of something."
That is, state supreme courts are the last word on interpreting state constitutions and laws.

David Long (defendant) was stopped by police when officers observed Long's car swerve into a ditch after he had been traveling erratically at a high speed. The United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) reversed the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court. It argued that the search violated both federal and state constitutions, suggesting that if the federal ruling was overturned the presumably more rigorous ruling from the Michigan Constitution would survive. Id. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with reasonable suspicion.

Procedural Posture: The Michigan State Supreme Court ruled that the police search did violated the Fourth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution’s own search and seizure laws.
Long argued during his trial that the evidence found in his car should be suppressed because the search was unconstitutional. In Terry, the Supreme Court only permitted a search of the person.