Motor vehicle exception

Last updated
San Francisco Police searching a vehicle after a stop in 2008. SF Police search the car.jpg
San Francisco Police searching a vehicle after a stop in 2008.

The motor vehicle exception is a legal rule in the United States that modifies the normal probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and, when applicable, allows a police officer to search a motor vehicle without a search warrant.

Contents

Description

The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States . [1] [2] The motor vehicle exception allows officers to search a vehicle without a search warrant if they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is in the vehicle. [3] The exception is based on the idea that there is a lower expectation of privacy in motor vehicles because of the regulations under which they operate. Also, the ease of mobility creates an inherent exigency to prevent the removal of evidence and contraband.

In Pennsylvania v. Labron [4] the US Supreme Court stated, "If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to search the vehicle without more." [3]

The scope of the search is limited to only the area that the officers have probable cause to search. The area can encompass the entire vehicle, including the trunk. The motor vehicle exception, in addition to allowing officers to search the vehicle, allows officers to search any containers found inside the vehicle that could contain the evidence or contraband for which they are searching ( United States v. Ross ). The objects searched do not need to belong to the owner of the vehicle. In Wyoming v. Houghton , [5] the US Supreme Court ruled that the ownership of objects searched in the vehicle is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the search. [3]

Some states' constitutions require officers to show there was not enough time to obtain a warrant. Except for states with that requirement, officers are not required to obtain a warrant even if it may be possible to do so. [2]

In United States v. Ludwig , the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a search warrant is not required even if there is little or no risk of the vehicle being driven off. The court stated, "If police have probable cause to search a car, they need not get a search warrant first even if they have time and opportunity." In United States v. Johns , the US Supreme Court upheld a search of a vehicle that had been seized and was in police custody for three days prior to the search: "A vehicle lawfully in police custody may be searched on the basis of probable cause to believe it contains contraband, and there is no requirement of exigent circumstances to justify such a warrantless search." [2]

The US Supreme Court in California v. Carney [6] found the motor vehicle exception to apply to a motor home. The court, however, made a distinction between readily-mobile motor homes and parked mobile homes. A number of factors, including the home being elevated on blocks, the vehicle being licensed, and its connection to utilities determine if the motor vehicle exception applies. In United States v. Johns, [7] the motor vehicle exception was applied to trucks. In United States v. Forrest , it was applied to trailers pulled by trucks and to boats. In United States v. Hill , it was applied to house boats. [8] In United States v. Nigro [9] and United States v. Montgomery , [10] the motor vehicle exception was found to apply to airplanes. [3]

Development

The motor vehicle exception has gone through five phases as marked by Supreme Court cases: [11]

See also: Cooper v. California
See also: Preston v United States , [14] Dyke v Taylor Implement Mfg. Co. ; [15] Coolidge v. New Hampshire, [16] Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, [17] Cardwell v. Lewis , [18] case=1493564502897179932|website=Google Scholar|publisher=Google|access-date=11 September 2017}}</ref>
See also: United States v. Chadwick , [20] Colorado v. Bannister [21]
See also: California v. Acevedo , [23] Wyoming v. Houghton [24]
See also: Michigan v. Thomas , [25] United States v. Johns , [26] California v. Carney , [6] Maryland v. Dyson [27]

The vehicle exception does not include vehicles parked within private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, which includes a home and its surrounding curtilage, defined by the Fourth Amendment, as determined in Collins v. Virginia (2018). The Supreme Court also ruled in the 2017 case Byrd v. United States that the motor vehicle exception also includes those driving rental vehicles even if the driver is not listed on the rental agreement.

See also

Related Research Articles

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Search and seizure</span> Police power to confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to a crime

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.

In criminal procedure law of the United States, an exigent circumstance allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, allows them to enter without knocking and waiting for the owner's permission to enter. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect's escape is imminent. Once entry is obtained, the plain view doctrine applies, allowing the seizure of any evidence or contraband discovered in the course of actions consequent upon the exigent circumstances.

United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982), was a search and seizure case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The high court was asked to decide if a legal warrantless search of an automobile allows closed containers found in the vehicle to be searched as well. The appeals court had previously ruled that opening and searching the closed portable containers without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, even though the warrantless vehicle search was permissible due to existing precedent.

In the United States, the plain view doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement that allows an officer to seize evidence and contraband that are found in plain view during a lawful observation. The doctrine is also regularly used by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers while screening persons and property at U.S. airports.

Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule, is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.

In United States criminal law, the border search exception is a doctrine that allows searches and seizures at international borders and their functional equivalent without a warrant or probable cause. Generally speaking, searches within 100 miles of the border are more permissible without a warrant than those conducted elsewhere in the U.S. The doctrine also allows federal agents to search people at border crossings without a warrant or probable cause. The government is allowed to use scanning devices and to search personal electronics. Invasive bodily searches, however, require reasonable suspicion.

Police officers in various jurisdictions have power to search members of the public, for example, for weapons, drugs and stolen property. This article concerns searches of members of the public who have not been arrested and who are not held in detention. For search powers in relation to those persons see Search on arrest and Searches in detention. For searches of property, rather than people, see search and seizure.

California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which interpreted the Carroll doctrine to provide one rule to govern all automobile searches. The Court stated, "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained." The decision also overruled the distinctions in United States v. Chadwick (1977) and Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) which had previously held that, if probable cause existed to search an automobile, the police may perform a warrantless search of the automobile and the containers within it, but if the police only had probable cause to search a container in the automobile, the police first had to obtain a warrant before searching the container.

Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrantless searches of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. The case has also been cited as widening the scope of search.

United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception. The Court reasoned that while luggage is movable like an automobile, it does not have the lesser expectation of privacy associated with an automobile.

Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that absent exigency, the warrantless search of a passenger's container capable of holding the object of a search for which there is probable cause is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because it is justified under the automobile exception as an effect of the car.

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the search of an automobile by the United States Border Patrol without a warrant or probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. The vehicle was stopped and searched for illegal aliens twenty-five miles (40 km) from the Mexican border. The Court approached the search from four views: automobile search, administrative inspection, heavily regulated industry inspection, and border search. As to the validity of the search under the automobile exception, the Court found no justification for the search under the Carroll doctrine because there was no probable cause. As to the validity of the search under various administrative inspection doctrines, the Court found that the officers lacked an area warrant. As to the validity of the heavily regulated industry inspection, the Court found that the doctrine is not applicable to traveling on a state highway. As to the validity of a border search, the Court found that the site of the stop and the entirety of the road on which the stop occurred was too far from the border to be considered a border search.

The law of search and seizure in Pennsylvania is controlled by both the United States Constitution and the broader protections of the Pennsylvania Constitution. This article is concerned only with the protections provided by the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1 (1980), is a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the automobile exception to constitutional protections against searches and seizures.

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the US Supreme Court, which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.

Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning search and seizure. A 6–3 decision reversed the weapons conviction of a Long Island man who had been detained when police followed his vehicle after he left his apartment just before it was to be searched. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and Antonin Scalia filed a concurrence. Stephen Breyer dissented.

<i>Florida v. Jardines</i> 2013 United States Supreme Court case

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case which resulted in the decision that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant.

United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559 (1927), is a significant decision by the United States Supreme Court protecting prohibition laws. The Court held 1) the Coast Guard may seize, board, and search vessels beyond the U.S. territorial waters and the high seas 12 miles outward from the coast if probable cause exists to believe that the vessel and persons in it are violating U.S. revenue laws, and 2) the Coast Guard's use of searchlights to view contents of a vessel on the high seas does not constitute a search and thus does not warrant Fourth Amendment protections.

Collins v. Virginia, No. 16-1027, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the US Supreme Court involving search and seizure. At issue was whether the Fourth Amendment's motor vehicle exception permits a police officer uninvited and without a warrant to enter private property, approach a house, and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house that is otherwise visible from off the property. In an 8–1 judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that the automobile exception does not apply to vehicles parked within the home or the curtilage of a private homeowner.

References

  1. 1 2 "Carroll v. United States, 267 US 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  2. 1 2 3 Regini, Lisa A. (1999). "The Motor Vehicle Exception". FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 68 (7): 26. Archived from the original on 16 December 2016. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Hendrie, E. (August 2005). "The Motor Vehicle Exception." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 74, Retrieved August 14, 2006 Archived December 29, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
  4. ↑ "Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 US 938, 116 S. Ct. 2485, 135 L. Ed. 2d 1031 (1996)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  5. ↑ "Wyoming v. Houghton 526 US 295, 119 S. Ct. 1297, 143 L. Ed. 2d 408". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  6. 1 2 "California v. Carney, 471 US 386, 105 S. Ct. 2066, 85 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1985)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  7. ↑ "United States v. Johns, 469 US 478, 105 S. Ct. 881, 83 L. Ed. 2d 890 (1985)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  8. ↑ "United States v. Forrest, 620 F.2d 446, 457 (5th Cir. 1980)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  9. ↑ "United States v. Nigro, 727 F.2d 100, 103 (6th Cir. 1984) (en banc)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  10. ↑ "United States v. Montgomery, 620 F.2d 753 (10th Cir. 1980)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  11. ↑ 1-18 Search and Seizure § 18.3. Copyright 2008, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group.
  12. ↑ "United States v. Di Re, 332 US 581, 68 S. Ct. 222, 92 L. Ed. 210 , 267 US 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  13. ↑ "Chambers v. Maroney 399 US 42, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1970)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  14. ↑ "Preston v. United States, 376 US 364, 84 S. Ct. 881, 11 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1964)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  15. ↑ "Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co. 391 US 216, 88 S. Ct. 1472, 20 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1968)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  16. ↑ "Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  17. ↑ "Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 US 266, 93 S. Ct. 2535, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596 (1973)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  18. ↑ "Cardwell v. Lewis 417 US 583, 94 S. Ct. 2464, 41 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1974)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  19. ↑ "Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 US 753, 99 S. Ct. 2586, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1979)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  20. ↑ "United States v. Chadwick, 433 US 1, 97 S. Ct. 2476, 53 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1977)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  21. ↑ "Colorado v. Bannister, 449 US 1, 101 S. Ct. 42, 66 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1980)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  22. ↑ "United States v. Ross, 456 US 798, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  23. ↑ "California v. Acevedo, 500 US 565, 111 S. Ct. 1982, 114 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1991)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  24. ↑ "Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 US 295, 119 S. Ct. 1297, 143 L. Ed. 2d 408 (1999)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  25. ↑ "Michigan v. Thomas 458 US 259, 102 S. Ct. 3079, 73 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1982)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  26. ↑ "United States v. Johns, 469 US 478, 105 S. Ct. 881, 83 L. Ed. 2d 890 (1985)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  27. ↑ "Maryland v. Dyson, 527 US 465, 119 S. Ct. 2013, 144 L. Ed. 2d 442 (1999)". Google Scholar. Google. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.