Searches and Seizures of Cars, Containers, & Objects Flashcards
U.S. v. Chadwick (S. Ct. 1977) (Is a warrantless search of a locked trunk unreasonable where probable cause exists that the trunk contains drugs and the trunk was seized during a lawful arrest, but the police have the trunk in their control for over an hour before they search it?)
The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy and requires that the police obtain a warrant before executing a search unless a relevant exception applies.
California v. Carney (S. Ct. 1985) (Is it permissible under the Fourth Amendment for law enforcement agents to search a mobile home that can be readily moved, is licensed as a motor vehicle and is parked in a public place, based on probable cause but without a warrant?)
Under the Fourth Amendment, a vehicle that can be readily moved and that has a reduced expectation of privacy due to its use as a licensed motor vehicle may be searched without a warrant provided probable cause exists.
Arizona v. Hicks (S. Ct. 1987) (A bullet was shot through the floor of Hick’s (defendant) apartment and injured a man living below. While police were lawfully searching the apartment as part of the investigation, one of the officers noticed some expensive stereo equipment. Suspecting the equipment had been stolen, the officer moved the equipment so he could see the serial numbers. He reported the serial numbers to another officer at headquarters and learned that a certain piece of equipment had in fact been stolen. The officer seized the stolen equipment immediately. Based on the serial numbers, it was later determined that some of the other equipment had been stolen as well and a warrant was issued to obtain the equipment.)
For a warrantless search or seizure to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the plain view doctrine can only be invoked to search or seize evidence if the police have probable cause of the evidence’s incriminating character.
U.S. v. Place (S. Ct. 1983) (Federal agents stopped Place (defendant) at LaGuardia Airport. The agents seized his luggage, suspecting it contained drugs, in order to obtain a warrant to search the luggage. They ended up taking the luggage to Kennedy Airport to be examined by a drug-sniffing dog. This process from initial stop to dog sniff took approximately 90 minutes. In the meantime, the agents did not inform Place as to how long the luggage would be held or how he could get it back after the investigation was complete. The drug-sniffing dog reacted positively to one of the pieces of luggage and after the agents obtained a warrant, a search of the luggage found cocaine. At trial, Place asserted that the lengthy seizure of his luggage without probable cause violated his Fourth Amendment rights.)
When police seize luggage from a suspect’s custody, the limitations applicable to investigative detentions of the person himself should define the permissible scope of an investigative detention of the person’s luggage on less than probable cause.
California v. Acevedo (S. Ct. 1991) (The police watched as a man entered his home carrying a package they had probable cause to believe contained marijuana. Before a search warrant could be obtained, Acevedo (defendant) arrived at the house and left after about ten minutes carrying a bag that was the same size as the package. Acevedo put the bag in the trunk of his car and drove away.)
The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless searches of containers found in automobiles provided the police have probable cause that the container contains contraband
U.S. v. Bond (S. Ct. 2000) (Is the physical manipulation of a bag on a public bus a type of search that violates the Fourth Amendment?)
The physical manipulation of a bag on a public bus is a type of search that violates the Fourth Amendment.
South Dakota v. Opperman (S. Ct. 1976) (Under the Fourth Amendment, may police perform an inventory search of the contents of a vehicle lawfully in police possession?)
Police may constitutionally perform an inventory search of a vehicle lawfully in police possession.
A police officer may conduct an immediate warrantless search of an automobile that the officer has probable cause to believe contains contraband, the fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of a crime if:
(1) the officer stops the vehicle traveling on a public road; or (2) the officer discovers the vehicle parked, but apparently capable of operation, in a non-residential location.
Exigent circumstances are not required.
How long after arrest may an officer search a car that s/he reasonably contains contraband, the fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of a crime?
Unlike search incident to arrest on the streets, the officer may search the car at the scene or elsewhere shortly after the arrest if the police impound the car.
What may the police search if they gain probable cause to believe that a container holds contraband, the fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of a crime before it enters the car?
Just the container. The object sought dictates the scope of the search. But, if they open the container, and there is drugs or whatever, that may give police officers probable cause to arrest, which then gives them a valid search incident to arrest (because it is reasonably likely that they will find more evidence of the crime of arrest).
What may police look into during an inventory search?
Whatever is within their established protocol. The scope of the inventory search may include closed containers, provided that the inventory is not a pretext to search indiscriminately for incriminating evidence.
