Chapter 9-Vehicle stops and searches

Question 1

Vehicle stops and searches rule is different because motor vehicles are mobile and can be driven away at any time, making obtaining a warrant impractical.

Answer 1

rule was laid out in 1925 in Carroll v United States.

Court held that the search of auto without a warrant is valid as long as probable cause is present.

Question 2

requirement for a valid vehicle stop

Answer 2

police have reasonable suspicion,less than probable cause, of unlawful activity.

Question 3

vehicle search after a valid stop is governed by a different rule.

Answer 3

probable cause must be present or search is invalid.

Question 4

three cases decided by Court on this issue in 2004 and 2005

Answer 4

Unites States v Flores-Montano,2005; Thornton v United States, 2004; Illinois v Caballes, 2005

Question 5

leading cases briefed in this chapter are

Answer 5

Carrol v Unites States, New York v Belton, United states v Ross, Wyoming v Houghton and Bond v United States

Question 6

Warrantless search of automobile is valid if there exists probable cause to believe it contains contraband

Answer 6

Carroll v United States, 1925
officer recognizes Carroll returning to Grand Rapids from detroit, city known for illegal liquor, and have knowledge about Carroll transporting liquor illegally. chase ensued. Carroll later apprehended. search located liquor

Question 7

1925 Carroll case created the so-called

Answer 7

automobile exception

Question 8

if probable cause exists that an automobile contains contraband, a warrantless search is valid even if the auto is first moved to police station

Answer 8

Chambers v Maroney, 1969
Witness gave description of vehicle used in robbery. after arresting Chambers and three others, vehicle was taken to police station. search of car revealed two pistols, glove, credit cards belonging to gas station attendant. Search was valid

Question 9

Court held that whether the car was seized and taken to police station and warrant obtained or searched the veh without a warrant, either course is reasonable under the 4th Amend

Answer 9

This case reiterates the rule that warrantless searches of vehicles are valid as long as there is probable cause even if a warrant could have been obtained.

Question 10

Warrantless search of movable container found in a motor vehicle is invalid in the absence of exigent circumstances

Answer 10

United States v Chadwick, 1977
railroad officials in san diego observed defendant, who fit drug courier profile, loading an usually heavy footlocker, that was leaking talcum powder onto a train. DEA was notified and were waiting in Boston when train arrived. DEA used a dope dog on the footlocker before it was loaded into the trunk of car. Dog signaled the presence of marij, DEA arrested defendant who was taken to Federal Building along with the footlocker. DEA opened footlocker without warrant.

Question 11

Stopping an automobile at random and without probable cause is unreasonable under 4th Amend

Answer 11

Delaware v Prouse, 1979
officer stopped defendant on traffic to check drivers license and registration. officer smelled mariu and seized a quanity in plain view.

Question 12

police may conduct a warrantless search of passenger compartment of a car and of the contents therin if it is incident to a lawful arrest.

Answer 12

New York v Belton, 1981
belton was occupant in vehicle that was stopped on traffic. officer smelled marijuana and saw an envelope marked “supergold” on floor of the auto, which officer associated with marij. occupants were arrested. passenger compartment of auto an backseat was searched and found jacket belonging to Belton with cocaine in pocket

Question 13

This case, Court hewed a straightforward rule, in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of person is not only an exception to warrant requirement of 4th, but also a reasonable search under 4th

Answer 13

united States v Robinson,
lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of auto, officer may search the passenger compartment of that auto, examine the contents of any containers found within passenger compartment for if the passennger compartment is within the reach of arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach.

Question 14

in determining reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop, the totality of circumstances must be taken into account

Answer 14

United State v Cortez, 1981
Based on footprints found over a period of time, officers concluded that groups of illegal immigrants are gathering at location to be picked up by veh.
after objective facts and circumstantial evidence observed and collected, officers justified stopping the def. Stop was good.

Question 15

Totality of circumstances must yield a particularized suspicion that contain two elements that must be present before the stop can occur.

Answer 15

assessment of the situation must be based on an analysis of all of the circumstances
the whole picture must yield a particularized suspicion, that the individual being stopped is engaged in criminal activity.

Question 16

When making a valid search of a car, the police may search the entire car and open the trunk and any package or luggage found therein that could reasonably contain the items for which probable cause to search

Answer 16

Unites States v Ross, 1982
tip received Ross was selling drugs from trunk of car. Warrantless arrest of Ross. Based on Ross arrest and probable cause, entire vehicle searched.

Question 17

Ross case is important because it further defines the scope of police authority in vehicle searches. Belton case refused to address the issue of whether police could open the trunk of car.

Answer 17

However, that this authorization has limits. The police may not open large items taken from car (such as footlocker) without a warrant if there is time to obtain one.

Question 18

limited search of automobile, after a valid stop, is permissible if the officer has a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and might gain immediate control of a weapon

Answer 18

Michigan v Long, 1983
officer observed veh driving erratically at high rate of speed. veh swerved into a ditch and officer investigated. Long met officer at rear of car and appeared drunk or under influence. Long walked backt to his car and officers noticed a large hunting knife on floorboard. Long was stopped and frisked.

Question 19

May officers conduct a protective search of passenger compartment of a lawfully stopped veh to look for possible weapons?

Answer 19

Yes. similar to pat-down search authorized by Terry v Ohio

Question 20

Motor homes used on public hwy are automobiles for purposes of 4th Amend and therefoe a warrantless search is valid

Answer 20

California v Carney, 1985
police had info that Carney motorhomse was being used to exchange marijuana for sex. After surveillance, officers saw a youth emerged from motorhome and when questioned, youth said Carney had marijuana in veh.

Question 21

Two justifications for vehicle exception come into play

Answer 21

1. vehicle is readily mobile
2. there is a reduced expectation of privacy stemming from the pervasive regulation of vehicle capable of traveling on hwys.

Question 22

Warrantless inventory searches of the person and possessions of arrested individual are permissible under the 4th

Answer 22

Colorado v Bertine, 1987

Bertine arrested for DWI. Inventory search revealed drugs.

Question 23

Inventory searches without a warrant of the person and possession of arrested individuals are permissible under the 4th:

Answer 23

1. to protect an owners property while it is under police control.
2. ensure against claimes of lost, stolen or vandalized.
3. protect police from danger

Question 24

Evidence obtained from closed containers during inventory searches is not admissible in court unless authorized by dept. policy

Answer 24

Florida v Wells, 1989
Wells arrested for DWI. During inventory search, police found marijuana cigs butts in ashtray and locked suitcase in trunk. Police forced open the suitcase where bag full of marij.

Question 25

In Wells case, inventory searches requires the suppression of the marijuana found in locked suitcase that was removed from the trunk and pried open by police if:

Answer 25

police department’s lack of policy regarding the opening of closed containers.

Question 26

Probable cause to believe that a container in an automobile holds contraband or seizable evidence justifies a warrantless search of that container even in the absence of probable cause to search the vehicle.

Answer 26

California v Acevedo, 1991
officers surveilling apt where marij was delivered. Acevedo was seen entering apt and shortly thereafter seen leaving the apt carrying a brown bag which was placed in trunk of car. Acevedo was stopped and trunk searched finding the marij.
This case turns to Carroll v United States.- providing rule to govern auto searches. The police may search an auto and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.

Question 27

Acevedo case reverses two earlier Supreme Court rulings:

Answer 27

United State v Chadwick.1977- police could seize movable luggage or other closed containers but could not open them without a warrant, because a person has a heightened privacy expectation in containers.
Arkansas v Sanders,1979- Court prohibited the warrantless search of closed containers located in vehicle where there was probable cause to search only the container but not the vehicle.

Question 28

Court clarifies the confusion by rejecting Chadwick and Sanders and reiterating instead the Courts ruling in two other cases:

Answer 28

Carroll v United States, 1925,- warrantless search of auto based on probable cause to believe that veh contained evidence of crime and in light of veh likely disappearance, did not contravene with 4th warrant clause.
United States v Ross, 1982- warrantles search of auto includes a search of closed containers found inside the car when there is probable cause to search the vehicle.

Question 29

Acevedo goes one step further than Ross:

Answer 29

while Ross allows the warrantless search of container found in car if there is probable cause to search the car(as long as the opening of container is reasonable, given the object of the search), Acevdeo allows warrantless search of container as long as there is probable cause to do so- even if there is no probable cause to search the car.

Question 30

There is no need for a warrant in vehicle searches if the vehicle is readily mobile, even if there is time to obtain a warrant.

Answer 30

Pennsylvania v Labron, 1996
police observed Labron and others engage in series of drug transactions on street, observing suspects retrieve drugs from trunk of car. After arresting suspects, officers search car trunk w/o warrant. Search is valid

Question 31

officers may search a veh incident to an arrest, but a search incident to the issuance of traffic citation, absent consent or probable cause, violates 4th

Answer 31

Knowles v Iowa, 1998

Question 32

officer with probable cause to search a car may inspect occupants belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search.

Answer 32

Wyoming v Houghton, 1999
during traffic stop, officer noticed a hypodermic needle in drivers shirt pocket. Driver admitted using needle to use drugs. all occupants ordered out of car. search of passenger compartment and backseat, officer found Houghton purse containing drugs. Valid search. Probable cause exists.

Question 33

Who possess a reduced expectation of privacy with regard to the property that they transport in cars, which travel public thoroughfares?

Answer 33

Passengers, no less than drivers.

Question 34

a travelers luggage is an effect and is under protection of 4th Amend. Officers may not physically manipulate the luggage to inspect it without a warrant or probable cause.

Answer 34

Bond v Unites States, 2000
Bond riding Greyhound bus when Boarder Patrol Agent boarded checking immigration status. Agent walking thru bus and along the way squeezed soft luggage passengers had placed in overhead storage.

Question 35

An officer arrest and occupant of a vehicle based on probable cause that a crime has been committed (or is being committed) in the vehicle and it is not clear who committed it, as long as there is reasonable inference from the circumstances that the person arrested could have committed the crime.

Answer 35

Maryland v Pringle, 2003
Pringle, a passenger stopped on traffic. officer seized cocaine observed in plain view, but none of occupants claimed the drug. all three were arrested. pringle later confessed the drug was his. Valid arrest and search

Question 36

Governments authority to conduct suspicionless inspections at the border includes the authority to remove, disassemble and reassemble a vehicle fuel tank.

Answer 36

United States v Flores-Montano, 2004
Defendant attempted to enter the US in vehicle and was required for a secondary inspection at the border. gas tank removed and found marij.
Border patrol does not need reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to remove gas tank of a vehicle at international border crossing.

Question 37

Who has granted the executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, and for what reason

Answer 37

Congress

in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country.

Question 38

Over 5 in half years, how many vehicle sezures at the southern California port entry?
How many were gas tank drug seizures?

Answer 38

18,788.

4619 were gas tank seizures, approx 25%

Question 39

Officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle after lawful arrest even if the suspect was not in the vehicle when arrested

Answer 39

Thornton v Unites States, 2004
Thornton driving veh and pulled into parking lot. Before officer could contact Thornton, Thornton exited the vehicle. Thornton was arrested for drugs. officer searched his car and weapon was found.

Question 40

New York v Belton, 1981

Answer 40

Court held that the area of immeidate control included the passenger compartment of vehicle.
“recent occupant”, may turn on his temporal or spatial relationship to the car at the time of arrest and search

Question 41

dog examination conducted during a lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of an illegal substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the 4th

Answer 41

Police dogs to sniff cars during a lawful stop is valid

Question 42

police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupants arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of an offense of arrest.

Answer 42

Arizona v Grant,2009
on “recent occupants”, officer can only search the vehicle if the search is relevant to the crime of the arrest. In Grant, Grant was far enough away from his vehicle handcuffed. In Thornton, although handcuffed, the search of the vehicle was related to the crime of the arrest.

Question 43

If the arrestee is physically removed from the vehicle, the only way to conduct the search seems to be if it is directly related to the arrest.

Answer 43

Arizona v Gant