Also known as: car exceptions · automobile exception · vehicle exception
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A doctrine permitting law enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless search of a readily mobile vehicle when probable cause exists to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. The reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles and their inherent mobility supply the justification for proceeding without a warrant. Officers may search the entire vehicle and any containers within it that could reasonably hold the object of the search.
Curtis Cannon was stopped on the highway after officers received a reliable tip that his sedan contained stolen electronics. Officers had probable cause at the roadside but chose to tow the car to the station rather than search on the spot. Three hours later they opened the trunk and found the electronics inside a duffel bag. The evidence is admissible because the initial probable cause justified the later stationhouse search.
Cameron Cruz parked his van in the driveway immediately beside his house. Officers with probable cause to believe the van held illegal firearms walked onto the driveway and opened the rear doors without a warrant. The search violated the Fourth Amendment because the driveway formed part of the home's curtilage and required separate justification.
Cody Callahan drove a pickup with passenger Christine Castro. Officers developed probable cause that the truck carried narcotics. They opened Castro's closed purse found on the front seat and discovered pills. The search of the passenger's container was lawful under the automobile exception.
Carlos Castillo was stopped while driving a sedan. Officers had probable cause to believe the car contained heroin. They opened a paper bag and a zippered leather pouch in the trunk and recovered the drugs. The automobile exception authorized the complete search of every container that could hold the contraband.
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 caseCamila Cervantes was pulled over in her station wagon. Officers developed probable cause to search for stolen jewelry. While searching the passenger compartment they saw a distinctive bracelet in plain view on the floorboard. The bracelet was lawfully seized as part of the valid automobile search.
Petitioner Terry Brice Horton was convicted of the armed robbery of Erwin Wallaker, the treasurer of the San Jose Coin Club. When Wallaker returned to his home after the Club's annual show, he entered his garage and was accosted by two masked men, one armed with a machine gun and the other with an electrical shocking device. The two men shocked Wallaker, bound and handcuffed him, and robbed him of jewelry and cash. During the encounter sufficient conversation took place to enable Wallaker subsequently to identify petitioner's distinctive voice. Sergeant LaRault, an experienced police officer, investigated the crime and determined that there was probable cause to search petitioner's home for the proceeds of the robbery and for the weapons used by the robbers. His affidavit for a search warrant referred to police reports that described the weapons as well as the proceeds, but the warrant issued by the Magistrate only authorized a search for the proceeds, including three specifically described rings. Pursuant to the warrant, LaRault searched petitioner's residence, but he did not find the stolen property. During the course of the search, however, he discovered the weapons in plain view and seized them. Specifically, he seized an Uzi machine gun, a .38-caliber revolver, two stun guns, a handcuff key, a San Jose Coin Club advertising brochure, and a few items of clothing identified by the victim. LaRault testified that while he was searching for the rings, he also was interested in finding other evidence connecting petitioner to the robbery. The trial court refused to suppress the evidence found in petitioner's home and, after a jury trial, petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. It rejected petitioner's argument that the decision in Coolidge required suppression of the seized evidence that had not been listed in the warrant because its discovery was not inadvertent. The California Supreme Court denied petitioner's request for review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseCanyon Construction's delivery van sat parked in a residential driveway for two days. Officers developed probable cause that it contained illegal chemicals but obtained no warrant before searching. The search was invalid because the vehicle was not readily mobile at the time of the search.
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 caseYes. When probable cause to search existed at the time of seizure, officers may conduct the search even several days later without obtaining a warrant.
Supporting sources
Yes. Once probable cause supports a vehicle search, officers may open containers belonging to passengers that could hold the suspected contraband.
Supporting sources
No. Officers may not enter the curtilage of a home, such as a driveway immediately adjacent to the house, to search a vehicle without separate justification.
Supporting sources
No. The exception requires both mobility and a reduced expectation of privacy. A motor home located at a fixed residential site does not qualify.
Supporting sources
Officers may either search immediately or seize and tow the vehicle for a later search at the station without a warrant.
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…