Warrantless Exception: Automobile Exception Flashcards
Carroll v. US
court recognizes the automobile exception when warrant is not reasonably practicable to get + there is probable cause
Chambers v. Maroney (Moved car to police station)
Police arrested suspects for armed robbery. Drove car to police station, conducted search there.
Can warrantless search of car happen in police custody at police station?
Court says yes, decision to search car was not unreasonable because it could have been dangerous to conduct search on dark street in middle of night. Had PC to conduct search and behaved reasonably in dealing with the car’s mobility = valid search.
Caroll and Chambers
as a general matter, police can execute a warrantless search of a car (including its integral parts such as the glove compartment and trunk) based solely on PC to believe that the car contains evidence or contraband. (Carroll and Chambers)
US v. Chadwick (Containers in Cars) (Against Police)
– fed agents had PC to believe that a locked footlocker being transported by a train passenger contained marijuana. They waited until he disembarked train and placed footlocker in trunk of car, then arrested before the car even started. Footlocker was searched, revealing large amount of marijuana.
Court disallowed a warrantless search of a footlocker in truck of car in police custody at the station bc car was not mobile and trunk came w higher privacy expectations.
Police should have maintained custody of the footlocker until they could obtain a warrant for it.
Arkansas v. Sanders (Against Police)
following Chadwick, disallowed warrantless search of green suitcase placed in trunk of taxi
Robbins v. CA (Against Police)
disallowed warrantless search of opaque plastic containers in recessed luggage compartment, following Chadwick and Sanders
Powell concurrence found Robbins manifested “reasonable expectation of privacy” by carefully wrapping bricks and was entitled to protected of warrant requirement. Argued that Chadwick and Sanders were not automobile cases bc PC attached to the containers before they came near the car.
US v. Ross (Policy regain)
police had probable cause to believe Ross selling drugs out of trunk, stopped him, searched car including trunk w/out warrant, found a closed paper bad, searched it, found drugs
- Court said this search was valid - difference being that police had probable cause that “extended to the entire car, rather than being limited (like it was in Chadwick) to just a particular container that happened to be located in the car”
- RULE: scope of warrantless search of automobile is thus not defined by the nature of the contained in which the contraband is secreted – it is defined by the OBJECT OF THE SEARCH and the PLACES IN WHICH THERE IS PC TO BELIEVE THAT IT MAY BE FOUND
Effect - DICHOTOMY:
- Car-General: If there is probable cause to search a car, then the entire car—included any closed container found therein—may be searched w/o a warrant [Ross]
- Container-Specific: BUT if there is prob cause only as to a container in the car, the container may be held but not searched until a warrant is obtained [Chadwick & Sanders]
California v. Acevado (1991)
Picked up brown package from apt - officers had probable cause to believe contained pot b/c of a DEA agent’s tips - Acevado walked to his car, placed brown paper package in trunk, started driving away. Fearing loss of evidence, officers pulled him over, opened trunk, and bag, found pot.
- Yes, it applies to the search of a closed contained → 4th amend does NOT require a warrant to open a sack in a moveable car even when police lack probable cause to search the entire car
- In general - warrant not required to search a car b/c of the nature of the car itself and how it can be quickly moved before a chance for a warrant is obtained: a warrantless search of a car, based on probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime in light of an exigency arising out of the likely disappearance of the car, does not contravene the warrant clause of the 4th amend
- facts here are VERY similar to Ross and court adopts that rule → Here - police had probable cause that paper bag in trunk contained drugs - allowed to warrantlessly search the bag
- RULE: POLICE MAY SEARCH AN AUTOMOBILE AND THE CONTAINERS WITHIN WHERE THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE CONTRABAND OR EVIDENCE IS CONTAINED
Ross + Acevado = Probable Cause for Where?
Ross + Acevedo = Probable Cause for Where?
- Scope of warrantless search hinges on:
o Object of search
o Places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. [Ross]
- This means PC that container, within car, has evidence, allows warrantless search of the container. [Ross; Acevedo]
- If there is PC that contraband is in any other part of the car, then the entire vehicle, including containers, can be searched. Acevedo.
Wyoming v. Houghton (1999)
: Officer pulled car over for speeding/broken brake light - car had 3 passengers, while speaking to them noticed syringe in drivers’ pocket, asked driver to get out of car and put syringe on hood. Driver said he used needle to inject drugs. Considering this, officer got them all out of car and searched passenger compartment for drugs - found purse on back seat belonging to passenger, searched it and found drugs/syringes. She was arrested and moved to suppress evidence obtained from purse.
: is the 4th amend violated when police search a passenger’s personal belongings inside a car that they have probable cause to believe contains contraband? → Holding: NO.
no 4a violation; police officers w PC to search a car may inspect passenger’s belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search. and there was def PC here in this case.
. A passenger’s personal belongings, just like the driver’s belongings or containers attached to the car like a glove compartment, are ‘in’ the car, and the officer has PC to search for contraband in the car.”
The critical element in a REASONABLE search is not that the owner of the property is suspected of a crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the specific things to be searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought”
- **compare with United States v. Di Re (1948) (does not extend permissible search to passenger’s person) and Maryland v. Pringle (2003) (permitting warrantless arrest of passenger based on probable cause evidence of contraband was in car)
Collins v. Virginia (2018)
Police officers searched a motorcycle that was covered by a tarp in a private driveway. They had suspicions that this was a motorcycle that had violated traffic laws and evaded police. They confirmed it was the motorcycle, waited for the defendant to come home and he confessed that he knowingly bought a stolen motorcycle. Arrested for receipt of stolen property. Trial could held that search was based on PC and justified under exigent circumstances automobile exception. Appeals affirmed on EC and VA Supreme Court affirmed as well but under automobile exception. VA Supreme court reasoned that the automobile exception applies even when the vehicle is not “immediately mobile” and applies to vehicles parked on private property.
No. The Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception does not permit a police officer without a warrant to enter the curtilage of one’s home to search a vehicle therein.
, the Court held that its own Fourth Amendment jurisprudence regarding the home and the “curtilage” of one’s home (the area immediately surrounding it) clearly prevents officers from entering and searching without a warrant, even if the object searched is an automobile.
