Chambers v. Maroney, Correctional Superintendent Writing for the majority was Justice White Issue is whether the Government was rightfully permitted to introduce evidence against the petitioner, Chambers Chambers v. Maroney, Correctional Superintendent

“The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” Does it protect your car

Do the Police need a warrant to search your car? Not begin electronic surveillance until investigation of the petitioner’s activitites had established a strong probability that he was using the telephone in quesiton to transmit gambling information to persons in other States, in violation of federal law. Surveillance limited, both in scope and in duration, to the specific purpose of establishing the contents of the petitioner’s unlawful telephonic communications.

Search incident to an arrest .Once an accused is under arrest and in custody, then a search made at another place, without a warrant, is simply not incident to the arrest in the home

Why the need for a Warrant Court doesn’t want “only in the discretion of the police.” Not incident to arrest Not hot pursuit Not pursuant to the suspect’s consent. “over and again this Court has emphasized hat the mandate of the (Fourth) Amenment requires adherence to judicial processes “US v. Jeffers) and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior amendment subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.

Facts Gas Station Robbed Two Teenagers see a station wagon, identify 4 men, one with a green sweater Matching car, 4 men, one green sweater A service station was robbed. Two teenagers outside and the cashier identified the type of car the suspects were driving, as well as the clothing two of the men were wearing. The car was stopped, the occupants were arrested, and the car was taken to the police station, where it was thoroughly searched, yielding two guns, proceeds from the robbery, and other evidence taken from the station.

Issue Whether evidence “seized from an automobile, in which petitioner was riding at the time of his arrest, after the automobile was taken to a police station and was there thoroughly searched without a warrant” is admissible.

Believe Petitioner was a robber Carrying Guns Fruits of the Crime Probable Cause. Probable cause Because: Believe Petitioner was a robber Carrying Guns Fruits of the Crime Station Wagon Four Men Green Sweater Yes. The court first referenced the Carroll case, which held that “if an effective search [of a car] is to be made at any time, either the search must be made immediately without a warrant or the car itself must be seized and held without a warrant” until a warrant is obtained. The court pointed out that probable clause applied in either circumstance, and so “there is little to choose in terms of practical consequences between an immediate search without a warrant and the car’s immobilization until a warrant is obtained.” Generally, the court held, the level of intrusion under the Fourth Amendment, immediate search vs. seizure in anticipation of a warrant, “may depend on a variety of circumstances.”

Probable Cause of Content in Car At the station only with a Warrant What do you think? Any time, any place? When Arrested Probable Cause of Content in Car At the Station At the station only with a Warrant Search on auto is different than search incident to an arrest. Dependent on a reasonable cause to believe the content of the automobile

The car is different from the home Yes. The car is different from the home Mobility Yes. The court first referenced the Carroll case, which held that “if an effective search [of a car] is to be made at any time, either the search must be made immediately without a warrant or the car itself must be seized and held without a warrant” until a warrant is obtained. The court pointed out that probable clause applied in either circumstance, and so “there is little to choose in terms of practical consequences between an immediate search without a warrant and the car’s immobilization until a warrant is obtained.” Generally, the court held, the level of intrusion under the Fourth Amendment, immediate search vs. seizure in anticipation of a warrant, “may depend on a variety of circumstances.”