Vehicle Searches Study Guide

According to the Supreme Court in California v. Carney (1985), does a motor home fall under the "automobile exception"? Why or why not?

According to Supreme Court California v. Carney a motorhome does fall under the "automobile exception" rule · It falls under the "automobile exception" because the motorhome has the capability to be used on the highway. The vehicle was licensed to operate on a public street. It was being used as a vehicle not a home

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

An inventory is a search but not for evidence, it is a search that helps keep the belongings of the suspect safe and the police officers safe and free from scrutiny.

Chadwick and Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) what was the rule the Supreme Court created as to the second circumstance?

Chadwick and Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) second circumstance search warrant was required to search a container in a vehicle if there was probable cause only as to the container

in view of the Court's decisions in Chambers v. Maroney (1970), 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?

Chambers v. Maroney (1970) the "automobile exception" does apply when the driver of the vehicle is under arrest law enforcement is not required to obtain a search warrant. Court also stated in response to the argument that the vehicle could be held until a search warrant was obtained

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

"Automobile exception" does not apply to all motor homes ·"Automobile exception" apply to motorhomes that have actual mobility of the vehicle-the immediate, or almost immediate possibility that the vehicle would be moved away by the suspect

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

For California v. Acevedo court resolved the distinction between Chadwick and Sanders and its ruling in Ross by ruling that containers in vehicles may be searched without a search warrant whether the probable cause is specific or general

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 (suitcase, a footlocker, a paper bag, a glove compartment, a jacket pocket, an envelope, a lunch box, a bottle, a cooler)

But when the container is in a vehicle, has the Supreme Court in the past drawn a distinction between the circumstance where law enforcement during a probable cause search of an entire vehicle encounter a container (general probable cause) and the circumstance where law enforcement has probable cause to search only a container in a vehicle (container specific probable cause)?

In the past the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between the circumstance of probable cause search of an entire vehicle encounter a container (general probale cause) and probable cause to search only a container in a vehicle (container specific probable cause)

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)?

Law enforcement do not have to honor other alternatives to impounding the car (if the inventory procedure gives officer discretion then its fine)

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?

Neither a warrant or probable cause is required when the car is impounded lawfully in Opperman. All that is required is that they follow standard inventory procedure.

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

The two requirements to conduct a search of a vehicle under the automobile exception is that · (Vehicle must have mobility) (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

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

United States v. Ross (1982) law enforcement can search any container found during the vehicle search that is large enough to hold the evidence for which they are looking, including the paper bag must be lawfully stopped vehicle

In its decision in Opperman, what was the concern of the Court as to inventory searches by law enforcement?

The concern of the court as to inventory searches by law enforcement is that they would use their discretion to find

Did the Court in Acevedo specifically overrule Sanders?

The court did specifically overrule Sanders in the Acevedo case

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

The driver of the vehicle in Carroll was not under arrest at the time of the search

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

A motor home would receive the same protection as a home under the 4th Amendment when it is situated in a way or place that objectively indicates that it is being used as a residence (privacy concerns)

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

According to Bertine, inventory searches do extend to containers in the vehicle. (if the standard procedure in place allow it)

in view of the Court's decisions in 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?

Texas v. White (1975) the "automobile exception" does apply when the driver of the vehicle is under arrest law enforcement is not required to obtain a search warrant. Court also stated with probable cause to search an automobile on the scene where it was stopped could constitutionally do so later at the station house without first obtaining a warrant

According to the Court, what are the two justifications for this exception? What are the two requirements according to Carroll for law enforcement to conduct a search of a vehicle under the "automobile exception"?

The Two Justifications are: (1) it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought (2) expectation of privacy with respect to one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office

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

The justification for allowing inventory searches without a warrant area: 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

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 opening by law enforcement of the footlocker violated Chadwick's Fourth Amendment rights and the evidence was suppressed

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

Wells inventory search was found invalid because the officer used the "inventory search" as a way to find evidence. There was no inventory policy to open up the containers and the officer used his own discretion.