500 U.S. 565 (1991)
On October 28, 1987, Officer Coleman of the Santa Ana, California, Police Department received a telephone call from a federal drug enforcement agent in Hawaii who had seized a package containing marijuana addressed to J. R. Daza at 805 West Stevens Avenue in Santa Ana and had arranged for a controlled delivery of the package to the Federal Express office there.1
Coleman received the package on October 29, verified its contents pursuant to a search warrant, and took it to the Federal Express office for pickup.2 At about 10:30 a.m. on October 30, a man identifying himself as Jamie Daza claimed the package at the office and drove it to the apartment on West Stevens.3 Daza later left the apartment and discarded the box and wrapping in a trash bin.4
Officers then stopped Richard St. George as he drove away from the apartment carrying a blue knapsack containing one and one-half pounds of marijuana.5 At approximately 12:30 p.m., respondent Charles Steven Acevedo arrived at the apartment, remained inside for about ten minutes, and emerged carrying a brown paper bag the size of one of the wrapped marijuana packages sent from Hawaii.6
Acevedo placed the bag in the trunk of his silver Honda and began to drive away.7 Officers in a marked police car stopped the vehicle, opened the trunk, opened the bag, and discovered marijuana inside.8 Acevedo was charged in California state court with possession of marijuana for sale.9 The trial court denied his motion to suppress the marijuana.10 He pleaded guilty while reserving the right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion.11
The California Court of Appeal reversed the conviction.12 The California Supreme Court denied the State's petition for review.13 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.14
Whether the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a warrant to open the trunk of a vehicle and a closed container inside the trunk when they have probable cause to believe that the trunk and the container contain contraband?15
Police officers may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence is contained.16
No. The officers had probable cause to believe that the brown paper bag contained marijuana when Acevedo placed it in the trunk of his silver Honda after leaving the apartment.17 Under the automobile exception as clarified in Ross, this probable cause directed at the container within the vehicle authorized the warrantless search of the trunk and the bag itself without any requirement to obtain a warrant first.18 The Court therefore held that the Fourth Amendment permits such a search.19
The Fourth Amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant to open the trunk of a vehicle and a closed container inside the trunk when they have probable cause to believe that the trunk and the container contain contraband.20 The judgment of the California Court of Appeal is reversed and the case is remanded.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment.22 He would have gone further by overruling Chadwick and Sanders in their entirety.23 Scalia viewed the distinction drawn in those cases between containers in automobiles and other containers as artificial and lacking any principled basis.24
In his view the automobile exception should apply to all containers in automobiles whenever there is probable cause to believe they contain contraband.25 He emphasized that the Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches and that the common-law tradition supported warrantless searches based on probable cause in this context.26
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Stevens dissented and would have affirmed the judgment of the California Court of Appeal.27 He maintained that the decision effectively overrules Chadwick and Sanders without acknowledgment.28 Stevens argued that a closed container carries a heightened expectation of privacy that is not diminished merely because the container is placed in an automobile.29
He contended that the warrant requirement should continue to apply to searches of closed containers even when police have probable cause to believe the container contains contraband.30