Also known as: automobile exceptions · vehicle exception · Carroll doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement that permits officers to search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. The exception rests on the vehicle's ready mobility and the reduced expectation of privacy associated with automobiles. Officers may search the entire vehicle and any containers that could hold the object of the search.
Aaron Adams was stopped on the highway after officers received a tip that his sedan contained stolen electronics. The officers had probable cause at the scene but chose to tow the car to the station rather than search it roadside. Three hours later they opened the trunk and found the electronics inside a duffel bag. The evidence is admissible because the automobile exception allowed the delayed search once probable cause existed at the time of the stop.
Andre Antoine parked his motorcycle in the driveway next to his house. Officers with probable cause that the bike contained drugs walked onto the driveway and searched it without a warrant. The search violated the Fourth Amendment because the automobile exception does not permit officers to enter the curtilage of a home to reach the vehicle.
Alice Atkins was a passenger in a van stopped on probable cause that it carried illegal firearms. Officers searched the entire vehicle and opened her purse found on the floorboard, discovering ammunition. The search of the purse was lawful under the automobile exception because a passenger shares the reduced privacy expectation in the vehicle.
Amelia Amari's car was stopped after officers observed her loading what appeared to be drug packages into the trunk. With probable cause that the vehicle contained narcotics, officers opened every container in the trunk, including a locked suitcase. The automobile exception authorized the full search of the vehicle and its contents.
In the evening of November 27, 1978, an informant who had previously proved to be reliable telephoned Detective Marcum of the District of Columbia Police Department and told him that an individual known as "Bandit" was selling narcotics kept in the trunk of a car parked at 439 Ridge Street. The informant stated that he had just observed "Bandit" complete a sale and that "Bandit" had told him that additional narcotics were in the trunk. The informant gave Marcum a detailed description of "Bandit" and stated that the car was a "purplish maroon" Chevrolet Malibu with District of Columbia license plates. Accompanied by Detective Cassidy and Sergeant Gonzales, Marcum immediately drove to the area and found a maroon Malibu parked in front of 439 Ridge Street. A license check disclosed that the car was registered to Albert Ross; a computer check on Ross revealed that he fit the informant's description and used the alias "Bandit." The officers returned five minutes later and observed the maroon Malibu turning off Ridge Street onto Fourth Street. They pulled alongside the Malibu, noticed that the driver matched the informant's description, and stopped the car. Marcum and Cassidy told the driver — later identified as Albert Ross, the respondent in this action — to get out of the vehicle. While they searched Ross, Sergeant Gonzales discovered a bullet on the car's front seat. He searched the interior of the car and found a pistol in the glove compartment. Ross then was arrested and handcuffed. Detective Cassidy took Ross' keys and opened the trunk, where he found a closed brown paper bag. He opened the bag and discovered several glassine bags containing a white powder. Cassidy replaced the bag, closed the trunk, and drove the car to headquarters. At the police station Cassidy thoroughly searched the car. In addition to the "lunch-type" brown paper bag, Cassidy found in the trunk a zippered red leather pouch. He unzipped the pouch and discovered $3,200 in cash. The police laboratory later determined that the powder in the paper bag was heroin. No warrant was obtained. Ross was charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the heroin found in the paper bag and the currency found in the leather pouch. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied the motion to suppress. The heroin and currency were introduced in evidence at trial and Ross was convicted. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction in part. The entire Court of Appeals then voted to rehear the case en banc and held that the police should not have opened either container without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseAlexandra Armstrong's car sat in her driveway for two days while she was out of town. Officers with probable cause that it contained evidence of a crime searched it without a warrant. The automobile exception did not apply because the vehicle was not mobile at the time of the search and no exigency justified the warrantless entry.
In January 1964, fourteen-year-old Pamela Mason disappeared from her home in Manchester, New Hampshire, during a heavy snowstorm after receiving a telephone call about a babysitting job. Her body was discovered eight days later beside a major highway, prompting a massive police investigation. On January 28, officers visited Edward Coolidge at his home after learning he had been absent on the night of the disappearance. Coolidge produced three guns for inspection and agreed to take a lie-detector test. On February 2, while Coolidge was at the police station undergoing the test, two plainclothes officers arrived at his house and spoke with his wife. Mrs. Coolidge provided four guns belonging to her husband and some clothing she believed he might have worn on the night in question. Coolidge was held overnight on an unrelated charge but released the next day. Over the following two and a half weeks, the State accumulated evidence implicating Coolidge. On February 19, the results of the investigation were presented at a meeting between the police officers working on the case and the State Attorney General, who had personally taken charge of all police activities relating to the murder, and was later to serve as chief prosecutor at the trial. Coolidge was arrested at his home that day. His 1951 Pontiac automobile parked in the driveway was seized and towed to the police station two and a half hours later. The Pontiac was searched and vacuumed on February 21, again in January 1965, and a third time in April 1965. At Coolidge's subsequent jury trial for murder, vacuum sweepings from the car were introduced into evidence. One of the guns taken from the home was also introduced. Vacuum sweepings from the clothing were introduced into evidence. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction after upholding the admissibility of the evidence, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseAnika Anand was arrested after a traffic stop. Officers searched the passenger compartment of her car incident to arrest and found drugs in a jacket pocket on the back seat. Although the search-incident doctrine was limited by later precedent, the automobile exception independently justified the search once probable cause arose from the arrest circumstances.
On April 9, 1978, New York State Trooper Douglas Nicot stopped a vehicle traveling at an excessive speed on the New York Thruway. The car contained four men including respondent Roger Belton. Nicot smelled burnt marihuana and observed an envelope marked Supergold on the floor that he associated with marihuana. Nicot directed the men to exit the car and placed them under arrest for unlawful possession of marihuana. He patted each man down and separated them into four areas along the Thruway. Nicot then searched the passenger compartment and found a black leather jacket belonging to Belton on the back seat. Nicot unzipped a pocket of the jacket and discovered cocaine inside. He placed the jacket in his own vehicle and transported the four arrestees to a nearby police station. Belton was subsequently indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance. In the trial court Belton moved to suppress the cocaine. The motion was denied and he pleaded guilty to a lesser included offense while preserving his constitutional claim. The Appellate Division upheld the search and seizure. The New York Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNo. The exception itself supplies the justification once probable cause exists. The vehicle's mobility and reduced privacy expectation eliminate any need for additional exigency.
Yes. Officers may open any container that could reasonably hold the object of the search, including locked or sealed items. The scope matches what a warrant would allow.
Supporting sources
No. Officers must obtain a warrant to enter the curtilage even when they have probable cause to search the vehicle itself. The exception does not extend to the home's protected area.
Supporting sources
Yes. A passenger's containers fall within the scope of the vehicle search when officers have probable cause to search the car. The passenger shares the vehicle's reduced expectation of privacy.
Supporting sources
No. Officers may seize the vehicle and conduct the search later at the station without a warrant. The exception does not require contemporaneousness in place once probable cause exists at the time of seizure.
Supporting sources
…imagination can this be made into a case where "it is not practicable to secure a warrant," Carroll, supra , at 153, and the "automobile exception," despite its label, is simply irrelevant. Since Carroll would not have justified a warrantless search of the Pontiac at the time Coolidge was arrested, the later search at the…