Automobile Exception

The automobile exception refers to the reduced degree of privacy protection from intrusive searches and seizures that automobiles are accorded, in comparison with private homes, under the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The exception is based on the fact that the interior of an automobile is reasonably observable from the outside, negating an important privacy expectation. Also the mobile nature of a motor vehicle means that its occupants can move it out of the range of the jurisdiction of law enforcement, making the requirement of a warrant impracticable. However, indiscriminate use of the stop and search procedure would constitute an undue intrusion by the government into the affairs of ordinary citizens, and the circumstances under which a motorist can be detained and vehicles searched are therefore the topic of much discourse in legal scholarship and relevant Supreme Court decision making.

A key early decision in automobile exception cases is Carroll v. United States (1925). In Carroll, Chief Justice William Howard Taft remarked that warrantless searches of automobiles were constitutional and reasonable as long as there was probable cause the vehicle contained contraband. The extent of probable cause had some limitations. A police officer could not stop every law-abiding citizen operating a vehicle on the road to conduct a search without probable cause. Nor could law enforcement stop and search vehicles completely at random without suspicion that was both articulable and reasonable.

In United States v. Robinson (1973), the Court upheld the stop and search of a motorist involved in an observed traffic violation as a reasonable pretext to an arrest. In Delaware v. Prouse (1979), the Court decided that reasonable suspicion of a clear violation of the law by a motorist was necessary for stopping and detaining a motorist to check licenses and registration to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. After Maryland v. Wilson (1997), law enforcement officers could order a driver and passengers to exit the vehicle during a detainment over an offense as minor as a traffic violation. In sum, any driver who is not obeying the rules of the road can raise adequate enough suspicion in the eyes of the Court to justify a police intervention, and if police discover evidence of further illegality, an ensuing arrest will be supported in a court of law.

Another aspect of automobile searches and seizures is whether the search of contents within a vehicle is accorded the same protection as the search of the interior [Page 99]of the vehicle itself. In Robbins v. California (1981), the Court decided the exception to the warrant requirement for automobiles did not extend to closed containers within a vehicle, even when a valid warrantless vehicle search was underway. In United States v. Ross (1982), the Court supported the argument that the search of a paper bag and leather pouch discovered during a valid motor vehicle search did not require a warrant, if the police believed the packages contained the contents of a probable cause search.

In United States v. Johns (1985), a vehicle containing incriminating evidence was impounded pursuant to a warrantless search three days later, raising the question of whether the timing of a search affects its legality. The Court decided that because the vehicle's contents had been impounded for three days, an officer had sufficient time to obtain a warrant to conduct the search. The end result of the warrantless search was suppression of any evidence discovered. The Court also indicated that law enforcement may not retain possession of a vehicle and its contents for an indefinite period.

...