Motor vehicle exception
Encyclopedia
The motor vehicle
exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court
in 1925, in Carroll v. United States
. The motor vehicle exception allows an officer to search a vehicle without a warrant as long as he or she has probable cause
to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle.
thus permits police to search the vehicle without more.”
The scope of the search is limited to only what area the officer has probable cause to search. This area can encompass the entire vehicle including the trunk. The motor vehicle exception in addition to allowing officers to search the vehicle also allows officers to search any containers found inside the vehicle that could contain the evidence or contraband being searched for. The objects searched do not need to belong to the owner of the vehicle. In Wyoming v. Houghton
, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ownership of objects searched in the vehicle is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the search.
Some state's constitutions require officers to show there was not enough time to obtain a warrant. With the exception of states with this requirement, an officer is not required to obtain a warrant even if it may be possible to do so.
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, “[i]f 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 U.S. Supreme Court upheld a search of a vehicle that had been seized and was in police custody
for three days prior to the search. The court stated, “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 circumstance
s to justify such a warrantless search”.
The motor vehicle exception does not only apply to automobiles. The U.S. Supreme Court in California v. Carney
found the motor vehicle exception to apply to a motor home
. The court did however, make a distinction between readily mobile motor homes and parked mobile home
s. A number of factors including, the home being elevated on blocks, whether the vehicle is licensed, and if it is connected to utilities determine if the motor vehicle exception applies. In United States v. Johns, the motor vehicle exception was applied to trucks. In United States v. Forrest it was applied to trailers pulled by trucks. United States v. Forrest applied the exception to boats and in United States v. Hill to house boats. In United States v. Nigro and United States v. Montgomery the motor vehicle exception was found to also include airplanes.
Motor vehicle
A motor vehicle or road vehicle is a self-propelled wheeled vehicle that does not operate on rails, such as trains or trolleys. The vehicle propulsion is provided by an engine or motor, usually by an internal combustion engine, or an electric motor, or some combination of the two, such as hybrid...
exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
in 1925, in Carroll v. United States
Carroll v. United States
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which upheld that the warrantless search of an automobile is known as the automobile exception...
. The motor vehicle exception allows an officer to search a vehicle without a warrant as long as he or she has probable cause
Probable cause
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the...
to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle.
Five phases
The automobile exception has gone through five phases:- A. Early cases; Carroll v. United StatesCarroll v. United StatesCarroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which upheld that the warrantless search of an automobile is known as the automobile exception...
to United States v. Di Re and the requirement of exigency
-
- See also: Cooper v. California
- B. Chambers v. MaroneyChambers v. MaroneyIn Chambers v. Maroney , the United States Supreme Court applied the Carroll doctrine in a case with a significant factual difference—the search took place after the vehicle was moved to the stationhouse. The search was thus delayed and did not take place on the highway as in Carroll...
and relaxing of exigency
- B. Chambers v. Maroney
- See also: Preston v United States, Dyke v Taylor Implement Mfg. Co.; Coolidge v. New HampshireCoolidge v. New HampshireCoolidge v. New Hampshire, was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception.The state sought to justify the search of Edward Coolidge's car on three theories: automobile exception, search incident, and plain view.Facts of the Case:In the wake of...
, Almeida-Sanchez v. United StatesAlmeida-Sanchez v. United StatesAlmeida-Sanchez v. United States, , was a United States Supreme Court case.It involved a random vehicle stop near the border by the Border Patrol for which there was no justification whatsoever. The Court approached the search from two views: automobile search and border search...
, Cardwell v. Lewis, Texas v. WhiteTexas v. WhiteTexas v. White, was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American...
- C. Automobile exception first applied to containers in Arkansas v. Sanders
- See also: United States v. ChadwickUnited States v. ChadwickUnited States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 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...
, Colorado v. BannisterColorado v. BannisterColorado v. Bannister is a 1980 decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the Constitutional protections against searches and seizures.- Facts :...
- D. Probable cause and containers -- United States v. RossUnited States v. RossUnited States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 , 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...
- D. Probable cause and containers -- United States v. Ross
- See also: California v. AcevedoCalifornia v. AcevedoCalifornia v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 , was a decision made by the United States Supreme Court, which interpreted the Carroll doctrine to provide one rule to govern all automobile searches...
, Wyoming v. HoughtonWyoming v. HoughtonWyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, 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 a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but...
- E. The clearer movement toward automobile--exigency
- See also: Michigan v. Thomas, United States v. JohnsUnited States v. JohnsUnited States v. Johns, was a case before the United States Supreme Court.-Background:Johns involved an Arizona Customs drug smuggling investigation where Customs officers followed two pickup trucks to a remote desert airstrip, and set up surveillance. Two small airplanes landed and departed. The...
, California v. CarneyCalifornia v. CarneyIn California v. Carney , the United States Supreme Court held that a motor home was subject to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because it was readily movable.-Background:...
, Maryland v. Dyson
- See also: Cooper v. California
Details
The motor vehicle exception is based on the idea of a lower expectation of privacy in motor vehicles due to the regulations they are under. Additionally, the ease of mobility creates an inherent exigency. In Pennsylvania v. Labron the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, “If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth AmendmentFourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
thus permits police to search the vehicle without more.”
The scope of the search is limited to only what area the officer has probable cause to search. This area can encompass the entire vehicle including the trunk. The motor vehicle exception in addition to allowing officers to search the vehicle also allows officers to search any containers found inside the vehicle that could contain the evidence or contraband being searched for. The objects searched do not need to belong to the owner of the vehicle. In Wyoming v. Houghton
Wyoming v. Houghton
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, 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 a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but...
, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ownership of objects searched in the vehicle is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the search.
Some state's constitutions require officers to show there was not enough time to obtain a warrant. With the exception of states with this requirement, an officer is not required to obtain a warrant even if it may be possible to do so.
In United States v. Ludwig, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Colorado* District of Kansas...
found that a search warrant
Search warrant
A search warrant is a court order issued by a Magistrate, judge or Supreme Court Official that authorizes law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a crime and to confiscate evidence if it is found....
is not required even if there is little or no risk of the vehicle being driven off. The court stated, “[i]f 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
United States v. Johns
United States v. Johns, was a case before the United States Supreme Court.-Background:Johns involved an Arizona Customs drug smuggling investigation where Customs officers followed two pickup trucks to a remote desert airstrip, and set up surveillance. Two small airplanes landed and departed. The...
, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a search of a vehicle that had been seized and was in police custody
Arrest
An arrest is the act of depriving a person of his or her liberty usually in relation to the purported investigation and prevention of crime and presenting into the criminal justice system or harm to oneself or others...
for three days prior to the search. The court stated, “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 circumstance
Exigent circumstance
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances...
s to justify such a warrantless search”.
The motor vehicle exception does not only apply to automobiles. The U.S. Supreme Court in California v. Carney
California v. Carney
In California v. Carney , the United States Supreme Court held that a motor home was subject to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because it was readily movable.-Background:...
found the motor vehicle exception to apply to a motor home
Recreational vehicle
Recreational vehicle or RV is, in North America, the usual term for a Motor vehicle or trailer equipped with living space and amenities found in a home.-Features:...
. The court did however, make a distinction between readily mobile motor homes and parked mobile home
Mobile home
Mobile homes or static caravans are prefabricated homes built in factories, rather than on site, and then taken to the place where they will be occupied...
s. A number of factors including, the home being elevated on blocks, whether the vehicle is licensed, and if it is connected to utilities determine if the motor vehicle exception applies. In United States v. Johns, the motor vehicle exception was applied to trucks. In United States v. Forrest it was applied to trailers pulled by trucks. United States v. Forrest applied the exception to boats and in United States v. Hill to house boats. In United States v. Nigro and United States v. Montgomery the motor vehicle exception was found to also include airplanes.