1. 1 Book Cover Here Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 5 Automobile Searches: exceptions to the warrant requirement Criminal Justice Procedure 8 th Edition

2. 2 Introduction The 4 th Amendment imposes two general requirements for searches and seizures to be valid: a search warrant and probable cause. Searches involving an automobile fall under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement for two reasons. – People have a diminished expectation of privacy in their automobiles. – Automobiles are highly moveable and can be driven away at any time. This makes obtaining a search warrant often impractical. – This includes houseboats, motorcycles, and motor homes that are found on the roadway. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 5, Automobiles

3. 3 Introduction Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 5, Automobiles The initial stop of a vehicle must be based on either reasonable suspicion or probable cause. – In Deleware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) the Court determined that a stop is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment when police officers randomly stopped a car for no apparent reason. Once the vehicle is stopped a search must be based on probable cause or valid consent of the occupants of the vehicle.

4. 4 Carroll v. United States Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 5, Automobiles The case was significant because it marked the first case that identified automobiles as unique for search and seizure considerations. This case, decided in 1925, created the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement by ruling that warrantless searches of motor vehicles are valid as long as there is probable cause to believe that seizable items are contained in the vehicle.

5. 5 Search of Containers Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 5, Automobiles Cases concerning stops and searches of vehicles include the discussion of what to do with containers found within the vehicle. Regardless of the efforts of a person to conceal his or her possessions in a car, a warrantless search of containers, packages, and other items within the car may be upheld if the officers can establish that probable cause exists to search the automobile for contraband.

6. 6 California v. Acevedo Acevedo provides a more definite rule for law enforcement to follow related to containers in vehicles. If police have probable cause to believe that a container within a vehicle is being used to conceal or transport contraband, they can search that container even if they do not have probable cause to search the vehicle. – If, however, probable cause is present to search for a particular item of contraband, and police do not know where within the vehicle that contraband may be located, they may search the entire car and open the trunk and any packages or luggage found therein that could reasonably contain the items for which they have probable cause to search. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

7. 7 New York v. Belton This case defined the extent of allowable searches inside the automobile after a lawful arrest. – Prior to this, there was confusion about whether the police could search parts of the automobile outside the driver’s “wingspan.” A search incident to a lawful arrest allows the officers to search the occupants of the vehicle, and the passenger compartment without a warrant. The search may include containers found within the passenger compartment. – The term “container” denotes any object capable of holding another object. It includes closed or open glove compartments, consoles, or other receptacles located anywhere within the passenger compartment, as well as luggage, boxes, bags, clothing, and similar items. This case also authorizes the police to search the interior of the car even if the occupant has been removed from the car or no longer constitutes a danger to the police Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

8. 8 Investigatory Stop If an officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed, a stop of a vehicle for investigatory purposes can be based on reasonable suspicion. – The standard used to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists is that of the totality of the circumstances. It must contain two elements: the assessment of the situation must be based on an analysis of all of the circumstances. “the whole picture must yield a particularized suspicion” that the individual being stopped is engaged in criminal activity. – In addition to an investigatory stop, officers may also conduct a brief inspection of the vehicle for weapons. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

9. 9 Michigan v. Long This case gives the police authority to conduct a limited search (similar to a pat-down search of a person) of the passenger compartment of a car if the officers have reasonable belief that they may be in danger. The search of an automobile, after a valid stop and limited to the areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the officer has a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and might gain immediate control of a weapon. – Such a search, however, must be limited to the areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden. – The basic rule for investigatory stops of automobiles is that they must be based on reasonable suspicion which gives rise to the need to investigate. – They must be limited in scope and duration. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

10. 10 Colorado v. Bertine This case allows inventory searches without a warrant even in situations in which containers must be opened. This is significant because prior to this decision it was not clear whether the police, in the course of an inventory search, could open a closed container. Inventory searches without a warrant of the person and possessions of arrested individuals are permissible under the Fourth Amendment: – To protect an owner’s property while it is under police control – To ensure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property – To protect the police from danger Evidence found in the course of the inventory search, even if found by opening a closed backpack, is admissible. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

11. 11 Illinois v. Caballes This case ruled that the use by the police of dogs to sniff cars during a lawful stop is valid. – The defendant here was validly stopped for speeding, but not for drug possession. The argument in Caballes was that the dog sniff was conducted without any suspicion at all. The Court determined that a K-9 does not conduct a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and that the dog did not intrude on any expectations of privacy. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

12. 12 Schnedckloth v. Bustamonte Schneckloth says that the suspect does not have to be advised that he or she has the right to refuse consent for the search to be valid. – All that is required is that the consent be voluntary. – Voluntariness of consent to search is to be determined from the totality of the circumstances, of which consent is one element. – Knowledge of the right to refuse consent is not a prerequisite for voluntary consent. – Based on this case, officers are not required to inform citizens that they can refuse the search for the consent to be considered valid. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

13. 13 Michigan v. Sitz This case upheld the concept of roadblocks for legitimate government interests. – The intrusion on motorists must be minimal and at least some evidence must be presented of both the problem to be addressed and the likelihood of the checkpoint addressing the problem for them to be upheld. – The general rule on roadblocks is that they must promote a legitimate government interest which is not designed for general detection of crime. – They must not “generate fear and surprise” in motorists. – Checkpoints must also follow specific guidelines that treat every motorist the same. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved

14. 14 Conclusion Automobile searches and seizures are identified as an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The exception is based on two primary issues: – the reduced expectation of privacy in a vehicle that is placed upon a public road and governed by governmental rules and regulations. – the inherent mobility of the vehicle and its contents. The primary consideration in conducting a warrantless search of a vehicle revolves around probable cause. Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved