Exam 2-5 Vehicle searches

According to the Court, what are the two justifications for "automobile exception"?

- the actual mobility of the vehicle - lesser expectation of privacy that exists with an automobile a highly regulated vehicle

What did the court state in Arizona v. Gant?

-law enforcement is permitted to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle in the course of arresting the occupant of a vehicle under two circumstances: a. the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance at the time of the search in order to prevent the arrestee from gaining access to a weapon or destroying or concealing evidence - it is "reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.

What did the court in Acevedo state about warantess searches?

Court ruled that containers in vehicles may be searched without a search warrant whether the probable cause is specific or general. therefore it returned all automobile searches to the basic rule of CAROLL

What are the case facts of California V carney

DEA Williams watched respondent, Carney, approach a youth. The youth and Carney went into Motor Home parked in a nearby lot. Carney and the youth closed the window shades in the motor home. Williams had previously received uncorroborated information that the same motor home was used by another person who was exchanging marihuana for sex. Williams, and other agents, surveilled the motor home. When the youth left the motor home, the agents followed and stopped him. The youth told the agents that he had received marihuana in return for allowing Carney sexual contacts. At the agents' request, the youth returned to the motor home and knocked on its door; Carney stepped out. The agents identified themselves as law enforcement officers. Without a warrant or consent, one agent entered the motor home and observed marihuana, plastic bags, and a scale of the kind used in weighing drugs on a table. Agent Williams took Carney into custody and took possession of the motor home. A subsequent search of the motor home at the police station revealed additional marihuana in the cupboards and refrigerator.

What was the question in California v.Carney (1985)?

Does the warrantless search of a motor home violate the Fourth Amendment?

What case settled the search of a vehicle incident to arrest?

Arizona v. Gant 2009

what case created the "automobile exception?

Carroll v. United States (1925)

What cases settled the automobile exception?

Carroll v. United states/ California v. Acevedo

In United States v. Ross (1982), what was the rule the Supreme Court created as to the first circumstance?

"If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle, and its containers that may conceal the object of the search."

What was the courts reasoning behind its holding in in Wyoming v. Houghton (1999)?

"Passengers, no less than driver's possess a reduced expectation of privacy with regard to the property thatthey transport in cars, which 'travel public thoroughfares'." -the Court balanced the diminished passenger's expectation of privacy with the interests of government

Did the Court in Acevedo specifically overrule Sanders?

"We conclude that it is better to adopt one clear-cut rule to govern automobile searches and eliminate the warrant requirement for closed containers set forth in Sanders.

In California v. Acevedo (1991), how did the Court resolve the distinction between its rulings in Chadwick and Sanders and its ruling in Ross?

"We have noted the virtue of providing "clear and unequivocal" guidelines to the law enforcement profession the Chadwick-Sanders rule is the antithesis of a clear and equivocal guideline.

According to the Supreme Court in California v. Carney (1985), does a motor home fall under the "automobile exception"?

"automobile exception" applies to a motor home that is being used on the highways, or if it is readily capable of such use and is found stationary in a place not regularly used for residential Purposes"

What are the two requirements according to Carroll for law enforcement to conduct a search of a vehicle under the "automobile exception"?

(1) law enforcement has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband (2) there is the exigency that the vehicle will be driven off if it is not immediately seized

What did the court in Florida v. Wells hold?

Highway Patrol had "no policy whatever with respect to the opening of closed containers" evidence should be suppressed.

What did the court settle in South Dakota v. Opperman?

If the police lawfully impounded a vehicle they may pursuant to an established standard procedure, secure and inventory the vehicles contents.

what did the court settle in Carroll v. United states/ California v. Acevedo

Law enforcement may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe evidence or contraband is contained.

What case touched on the "Frisk" of a vehicle?

Michigan v. Long 1983

Must law enforcement seek other alternatives before impounding a vehicle and performing an inventory in view of the Court's decision in Colorado v. Bertine (1987)?

No, addressed the issue of whether law— enforcement must honor the driver's request that the vehicle instead be lawfully parked at the scene or turned over to a friend -the Court held vehicle inventory procedures are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment without regard to the existence of such "alternative 'less intrusive' means." - the Court stated it is not objectionable that "departmental regulations gave the police officers discretion to choose between _ impounding...and parking...so long as that discretion according to standard criteria."

Does the "automobile exception" apply to all motor homes? If not, to what type of motor homes does it apply?

No, in a footnote in Carney, the Court stated in dictum where a motor home could be considered to have the increased privacy concerns of a home, " We need not pass on the application of the vehicle exception to a motor home that is situated in a way or place that objectively indicates that it is being used as a residence.

Was the driver of the vehicle in Carroll under arrest at the time of the search of the vehicle?

No.

Under Bertine when is it permissible for police to open closed containers in an inventory search?

Only if they are following standard police procedures that mandate the opening of such containers in every impound vehicle.

What case settled the Automobile inventory search?

South Dakota v. Opperman

What is the question in California v. Acevedo 1991 ?

Under the Fourth Amendment, may police conduct a warrantless search of a container within an automobile if they have probable cause to believe that the container holds evidence?

When would a motor home receive the same protection as a home under the Fourth Amendment?

among the factors that might be relevant in determining whether a warrant would be required in such a circumstance is it location, whether the vehicle is readily mobile or instead, for instance, elevated on blocks, -whether the vehicle is licensed, -whether it is connected to utilities, -whether it has convenient access to a public road."

What did the court comment after the holding in Florida v. Wells?

an inventory search must not be used as a ruse — for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.

According to the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), what is required for a valid inventory search of a vehicle by law enforcement?

in Opperman, the Court held that if the police lawfully impound a. vehicle, they may, pursuant to an established standard procedure, ~ secure and inventory the vehicle's contents. Police follow standard procedures i.e they do not exceed the scope of their own rules.

In regard to search law, how is the term "container" defined in legal terms?

in legal terms, a "container" can be any object that can hold another object -a "container" in these cases can be a suitcase, a footlocker, a paper bag, a glove compartment, a jacket pocket, an envelope, a lunch box, a bottle, a cooler -a container can be open, closed or locked

Describe the so-called "automobile exception" to the search warrant requirement first set forth by the Supreme Court in Carroll v. United States (1925).

it upheld a warrantless search of a vehicle being operated on the highway upon probable cause that it contained contraband, because the driver was not subject to a lawful arrest and thus the car could be quickly moved out of the jurisdiction before a warrant was obtained

What was officers probable cause in U.S. v. Ross?

law enforcement had probable cause to believe that contraband was located somewhere in the vehicle including the trunk, but not that -. it was located in a specific bag or container -in other words, the probable cause went to the vehicle itself(general probable cause)

Why did the court in California v. Carney (1985)find that the "automobile exception" applied?

motor vehicle was readily mobile. Furthermore, - was licensed to 'operate on public streets; - serviced in public places - subject to extensive regulation and inspection.' - was so situated that an objective observer would conclude that it was being used not as a residence, but as a vehicle."

In Sanders and Chadwick the probable cause was focused on the containers within the car, what was the probable cause focused on in U.S v. Ross?

on the car itself

where does the lesser expectation of privacy stem from concerning vehicles?

the "persuasive regulation" of vehicles by government which includes licensing requirements and equipment regulations

According to the Supreme Court in Wyoming v. Houghton (1999), can law enforcement search a container in a vehicle belonging to an occupant of the vehicle when conducting a probable cause search of the vehicle itself? If so, under what circumstances?

the Court held that, "We hold that police officers with probable cause to — search a car may inspect passengers' belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search.

Why was the inventory search in Florida v. Wells (1990) found to be invalid by the Supreme Court?

the Court unanimously held that highway patrol officers were not permitted to open a locked suitcase they discovered during an inventory search because "the Florida Highway Patrol had no policy whatever with respect to the opening of closed containers encountered during an inventory search." A five- justice majority stated in dictum, however,

What is rule developed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Chadwick (1977) as to a search by law enforcement of a container not in a vehicle?

the Supreme Court noted in Chadwick that despite the "lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle," there is no comparable lesser expectation of privacy as to containers such as luggage -therefore, containers outside of a vehicle can be searched without a Warrant only upon genuine showing of exigent circumstances

in part, the "automobile exception" in Carroll was based upon what factor?

the actual mobility of the vehicle

Define an inventory for purposes of the "automobile inventory" warrant exception?

the fourth amendment permits police officers to conduct a warrantless inventory search of a detained person's automobile in anticipation of towing the vehicle to a police impoundment lot

What is an inventory search limited to?

the inventory must be limited to where valuables are to found

what was the question in Wyoming v. Houghton (1999)?

the issue in Houghton was whether law enforcement may search, during a search of a vehicle under the automobile exception, containers they know belong to an occupant of the vehicle

According to the court what is the purpose of requiring that vehicle inventory searches be conducted according to standardized inventory procedures?

was to limit the discretion of an officer as to the manner in which the inventory is to be conducted

What did the court rule in the Michigan v. Long case?("frisk" of a vehicle)

when conducting a terry stop on an occupant of a vehicle, law enforcement can upon reasonable suspicion "that an occupant of a vehicle is dangerous and may gain control of a weapon"make a limited search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle- - the search of the passenger compartment is limited to those areas where a weapon may be placed or hidden

According to Bertine, can an inventory search extend to containers in the vehicle?

yes

What are the 3 exceptions to Searching a Vehicle without a warrant?

1. Probable cause 2. If an occupant or recent occupant Of an automobile is arrested, the police may sometimes conduct, as an incident of arrest, a contemporaneous search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle without a warrant 3. "Automobile inventory"

In both Chadwick and Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) what was the rule the Supreme Court created as to the second circumstance of the "automobile exception"? " (was the lesser expectation of privacy that exists with an automobile.)

- IN Chadwick " The court declined, that the trunk of the car increased the mobility of the footlocker, therefore there is a decreased expectation of privacy in his highly-regulated automobile. Stated "there was no diminished expectation of privacy in a container just because it ends up in a vehicle. The connection between the footlocker and the car was merely "coincidental". There was no risk of any destruction of evidence or suspect access to the container, once the container was seized, and no indication of explosives or other dangerous materials. In Sanders it was argued that the vehicle was in motion and therefore the suitcase could be searched without a warrant under the Automobile search exception. The court declined the reasons for the extension for not requiring a warrant for the search of an automobile do not apply to searches of personal luggage taken by police from automobiles. The fact that the car was moving did not change the analysis in Chadwick.

In view of the Court's decisions in Chambers v. Maroney (1970) and Texas v. White (1975), does the "automobile exception" apply when the driver of the vehicle has been arrested or is law enforcement required to obtain a search warrant for the vehicle in this circumstance?

Yes, Chambers v. Maroney: Court upheld the search under the vehicle exception of a vehicle on the highway when the driver of the vehicle was arrested and the vehicle was in police custody Texas v. White (1975): Court upheld the search of the vehicle under the automobile exception at the police station after the driver's arrest even though there was no indication that an immediate at-the-scene search would have been impractical

What are the justifications for allowing an inventory search of a vehicle according to the Court in Opperman?

a to protect the vehicle owner's property while it remains in police custody b.to protect the police from false claims or disputes over lost or stolen property c, to protect the police from potential danger :