Warrant Exception for Automobiles

Question 1

Carroll v. United States (1925)

Answer 1

This case established the automobile exception to the warrant requirement: the police can conduct a warrantless search of a car if they have probable cause that the car contains evidence of criminal activity.

The justification for this is:
1. the car is moveable
2. the occupants are alerted
3. if the police have to take the time to get a warrant, the contents of the car may never be found again.

Question 2

California v. Carney (SCOTUS 1985)

Answer 2

This case reevaluated the justification for the automobile exception. The two justifications are:
1. the ready mobility of a car
2. that people have a lesser expectation of privacy in their car because it is “subject to pervasive and continuing governmental regulation and control”

Question 3

Chambers v. Maroney (SCOTUS 1970)

Answer 3

This case confirmed that, according to the Carroll doctrine, the police can search a car at the police station if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of criminal activity.

It cannot be argued that the police should seize the car or hold it until they can get a warrant, as this may be more intrusive than conducting an immediate search. (aka seizures are not automatically less intrustive than searches)

Question 4

United States v. Chadwick (SCOTUS 1977)

Answer 4

This case held that if the police have probable cause to believe that a moveable effect/closed container (a footlocker, backpack, etc) contains evidence of a crime, they can seize it but they cannot search it. They need to get a warrant to search it.

Question 5

California v. Acevedo (SCOTUS 1991)

Answer 5

This case held that, if the police have probable cause that a closed container contains evidence of criminal activity…

1. If the container is inside a car, they have probable cause to search the car and the container.
2. If the container is outside a car, they have probable cause to seize it, but need a warrant to search it.