Vehicle Exception to the Warrant Requirement
based on the exigent circumstances and reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles-- but the searches must be based on probable cause which leads an officer to believe that they contain contraband or evidence, this extends most directly to the passenger co
If officers have probable cause to believe a container inside a vehicle contains contraband, can they search it?
YES.
Can officers search containers attached to people in the car?
YES.
Do passengers as well as drivers have a reduced expectation of privacy?
YES.
Does the Fourth Amendment create a distinction between merely evidentiary materials, which may not be seized during the course of a search, and the instrumentalities or fruits of the crime, which may be seized?
NO.
EXIGENCIES:
1. Preservation/Possible Destruction of Evidence 2. Hot Pursuit 3. Danger to the Community / Officer
Carroll V. U.S. (1925)
F: Federal prohibition agents had probable cause to believe bootleggers Carroll and Kiro were illegally carrying liquor from Detroit to Grand Rapids in their oldsmobile convertible. While patrolling for prohibition on a well-known road, they stopped the o
California V. Acevedo (1991)
F: Acevedo left an apartment where officers knew there was weed, carrying a brown bag the same size and likeness of weed packages that they'd seen leave the apartment before; Acevedo then put the bag in his trunk. The officers pulled him over based on pro
Wyoming V. Houghton (1999)
F: car stopped for speeding and having a faulty brake light; while questioning the driver, the officer noticed a syringe in the driver's front shirt pocket; he took the syringe and the driver admitted he used it to take drugs; the two passengers were orde
Warden V. Hayden (1967):
F: cab drivers follow hayden after he robs the cabbie's office, they told the taxi dispatcher, told police officers: the officers took the tip and went to his house, searched it and found the evidence of theft in his washer (his clothes.)
O: Upheld becaus
Ker V. California (1963):
The court held that a warrantless entry into a home was justified by the reasonable fear that Ker was about to destroy or hide marijuana.
Cupp V. Murphy (1973):
The court held that police officers who had probable cause didn't need a warrant to take blood scrapings from Daniel Murphy's nails because of the exigency behind the preservation of that evidence.
Schmerber V. California (1996):
The court held that rapidly declining blood alcohol levels justified giving a blood alcohol test without a warrant.
South Dakota V. Oppermann (1976)
F: Opperman's car was towed because it was parked DT after 2 am, inventoried and found less than an ounce of weed in an unlocked glove compartment, Opp got fined.
O: Defined the three needs of inventory searches above.
D: if the owner is in custody/contac
South Dakota V. Flitty (1988)
F: July 1984, got a typewriter from Swell, typewriter was stolen, unknown to Flitty. Flitty was arrested for a DUI the next day in his friend's car which contained the typewriter, doors to car didn't lock, he was charged with petty and grand theft.
O: Thi
Colorado V. Bertine (1987):
The court held that the fourth amendment doesn't require police officers to use the least intrusive means to secure property of seized vehicles so long as they follow PD policies.
Florida V. Wells (1990)
F: locked suitcase and 2 roaches in the car found during inventory search after Wells was arrested for a DUI-> NO inventory policy in PDs of Florida.
O: Reversed because there is no inventory policy in Florida and it wasn't incident to DUI arrest.
US V. Ramsey (1997)
F: Mail from Thailand was bulky and heavy, USPS in NYC opened to inspect without a warrant and found heroin.
O: Upheld because it was conducted at an international border. National interest in border control>privacy.
US V. Flores-Montano (2004)
F: seized drugs from the car- called for a mechanic to remove gas chamber, 600 minutes.
O: upheld because no RS is required and gas tank smuggling is a frequent issue (20% of seizures.)
Macwade V. Kelly (2006)
F: NYC subway checkpoints, every 5th or 10th person to enter they asked to conduct a visual search of bags/packages large enough to hold a bomb, no recorded data, but is grounds for arrest. If denied, no entry permitted.
O: Upheld because special needs an
Corbett V. TSA (2014)
F: challenged scanners and pat-downs were ineffective and invasive and said that metal detectors and bomb dogs are better.
O: Gov't officials decide the effectiveness and the policy behind this and it is not a requirement to be the least invasive as possi
Ruffin V. Commonwealth (1871):
The court held that the Bill of Rights is a declaration of general principles to govern a society of FREE MEN... (prisoners) are slaves of the state.
Lanza V. New York (1962):
A jail shares none of the attributes of privacy of a home, automobile, an office or hotel room, and official surveillance has traditionally been the order of the day in prisons.
Hudson V. Palmer (1984):
We have held that prisons are not beyond the reach of the constitution, but imprisonment carries with it the circumscription or loss of many significant rights." Court also held that unannounced searches of prisoners and their cells were not constitution
Bell V. Wolfish (1979):
Detainees, pre-serious charge/trial are able to be subjected to strip searches after any contact with outsiders to maintain safety and order, even where there is no probable cause to believe that they are carrying hidden contraband.
Florence V. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington Et. Al. (2012)
F: Florence was arrested for obstruction in 1998, in 2005 stopped in his car with his wife and arrested based on a warrant that he'd paid which was showing to be outstanding still. He was strip-searched wrice and held for 6 days.
O: "We give a high level
Mary Beth G. V. Chicago (1984)
F: chicago required all female detainees to be strip searched while males were just required to be patted down, males performed Mary Beth's strip search, as well as her friend Sharon's. (MB: $25,000 S: $60,000 for male comments.)
O: The chicago strip sear
Padgett V. Donald (2005):
Court upheld that DNA samples required from incarcerated felons can be stored and analyzed in the data bank maintained by the bureau of investigation.
US. V. Kincade (2004):
Court held that you can't force parolee's or detained people to give BLOOD DNA samples.
Griffin V. Wisconsin (1987):
upheld that is is reasonable for a probation officer to search a probationer's house on reasonable suspicion that he violated his contract.
U.S. V. Knights (2001):
Upheld that "when an officer has reasonable suspicion.. There is enough likelihood that criminal conduct is occurring" and therefore those searches are okay.