SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
 No. 00-391
 FLORIDA, PETITIONER v. ROBERT A. THOMAS
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF FLORIDA
[June 4, 2001]
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454  (1981), we established a "bright-line" rule
permitting a law enforcement officer who has made a lawful custodial arrest of the
occupant of a car to search the passenger compartment of that car as a contemporaneous
incident of the arrest. We granted certiorari to consider whether that rule is limited to
situations in which the officer initiates contact with the occupant of a vehicle while that
person remains inside the vehicle. 531 U.S. 1069  (2000). We find, however, that we lack
jurisdiction to decide the question.
On the evening at issue, officers were present at a home in Polk County, Florida,
investigating the sale of marijuana and making arrests. Respondent Robert Thomas drove
up to the residence, parked in the driveway, and walked toward the back of his vehicle.
Officer J. D. Maney met Thomas at the rear of Thomas' vehicle, and asked him his name
and whether he had a driver's license. After a check of Thomas' license revealed an
outstanding warrant for his arrest, Officer Maney arrested him, handcuffed him, and took
him inside the residence. The officer then went back outside, alone, and searched
Thomas' car. The search revealed several small bags containing a white substance that
tested positive for methamphetamine.
Respondent was charged with possession of methamphetamine and related narcotics
offenses. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the evidence of narcotics and
narcotic paraphernalia. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed, 711 So. 2d 1241
(1998), finding the search valid under New York v. Belton, supra. The Supreme Court of
Florida in turn reversed, holding that Belton did not apply.
The court held that "Belton's bright-line rule is limited to situations where the law
enforcement officer initiates contact with the defendant" while the defendant remains in
the car. 761 So. 2d 1010, 1014 (2000). The court concluded that Belton was inapplicable,
and directed that the trial court determine "whether the factors in Chimel [v. California,
395 U.S. 752 (1969),] justify the search of Thomas' vehicle." 761 So. 2d, at 1014. The
court explained that "[b]ased on the record ... we are unable to ascertain whether [the
officer's] safety was endangered
or whether the preservation of the evidence was in jeopardy," as necessary to justify the
search under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752  (1969), and remanded for further
proceedings.
Although the parties did not raise the issue in their briefs on the merits, we must first
consider whether we have jurisdiction to decide this case. See Duquesne Light Co. v.
Barasch, 488 U.S. 299, 306 (1989). Title §28 U.S.C.  1257 (a) authorizes this Court to
review "[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a
decision could be had ... where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up
or claimed under the Constitution." In a criminal prosecution, finality generally "is

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FLORIDA v. THOMAS
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
 No. 00-391. Argued April 25, 2001­Decided June 4, 2001
 While officers were investigating marijuana sales and making arrests at a Florida home,
respondent Thomas drove up, parked in the home's driveway, and walked toward the
back of his car. An officer met him there and asked his name and whether he had a
driver's license. After a check of Thomas' license revealed an outstanding warrant, the
officer arrested him, handcuffed him, and took him inside the home. The officer then
went back outside, alone, and searched Thomas' car, finding several bags containing
methamphetamine. Thomas was charged with possession of that drug and related
offenses. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the evidence of narcotics and
narcotic paraphernalia. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the search
valid under New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, in which this Court established a "bright-
line" rule permitting an officer who has made a lawful custodial arrest of a car's occupant
to search the car's passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of the arrest.
Holding that Belton did not apply, the Florida Supreme Court reversed, but remanded for
the trial court to determine whether the vehicle search was justified under Chimel v.
California, 395 U.S. 752. This Court granted certiorari to consider whether, as the State
Supreme Court had held, Belton's bright-line rule is limited to situations where the
officer initiates contact with a vehicle's occupant while that person remains in the
vehicle.
Held: The Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the question on which certiorari was granted.
Although the parties did not raise the issue in their briefs on the merits, this Court must
first consider whether it has jurisdiction to decide this case. See Duquesne Light Co. v.
Barasch, 488 U.S. 299, 306. Title §28 U.S.C.  1257 (a) authorizes this Court to review
"[f]inal judgments ... by the highest court of a State ... where any ... right ... is specially
set up or claimed under the Constitution." In a criminal prosecution, finality generally is
defined by a judgment of conviction and the imposition of a sentence. Fort Wayne Books,
Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 54. However, in certain circumstances, the Court has treated
state-court judgments as final for jurisdictional purposes even though further proceedings
were to take place in the state court. Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U.S. 619, 620-621. In Cox
Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 479-483, the Court divided cases of this
kind into four categories: (1) cases in which there are further proceedings, even entire
trials, yet to occur in the state courts, but where the federal issue is conclusive or the
outcome of further proceedings preordained; (2) cases in which the federal issue, finally
decided by a State's highest court, will survive and require decision regardless of the
outcome of future state-court proceedings; (3) cases in which the federal claim has been
finally decided, with further proceedings on the merits in the state courts to come, but in
which later review of the federal issue cannot be had, whatever the ultimate outcome of
the case; and (4) cases in which the state courts have finally decided the federal issue
with further proceedings pending in which the party seeking review in this Court might
prevail on the merits on nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary review of the
federal issue by this Court, and where reversal of the state court on the federal issue