Vehicle Searches

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides most of the controlling principles regarding searches. The Amendment provides that

The U.S. Supreme Court, which is responsible for interpreting the Constitution, has decided many cases that have spelled out exactly when a search warrant is required and when a warrant is not required. Vehicles are generally considered an exception to the Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirement. This exception is also known as the Carroll doctrine because it was in Carroll v. United States (1925) that the Supreme Court ruled that automobiles were unique. The most important characteristic of an automobile cited by the Court in formulating the automobile exception is its mobility. As the court stated in Chambers v. Maroney (1970), “The car is movable, the occupants are alerted, and the car's contents may never be found again if a warrant must be obtained.” Because automobiles travel on public roadways in the public view, there is a lesser expectation of privacy than elsewhere.

The controlling factor in the search of an automobile without a search warrant is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains items that are connected with criminal activity. Such items are subject to seizure. Probable cause depends on the circumstances of the particular case. The degree of evidence suggesting criminal activity must be objective and such that a warrant could have been issued by a magistrate based on it. Evidence seized from a vehicle will not be admissible in court if the seizure is not based on probable cause.

Delays in the warrantless search of a vehicle can be problematic for law enforcement. Warrantless searches should be conducted immediately at the scene where the vehicle is stopped. The only exception to this expediency requirement is when the search would be unsafe or impractical. Where safety is an issue, the vehicle can be moved to a safe location before the search is conducted. The Supreme Court has ruled that a vehicle may be searched even after it has been impounded and in police custody. In United States v. Johns (1985), the Court suggested that such a search would be impermissible after 3 days have elapsed.

The language used by the court in Chambers v. Maroney (1970) suggested that exigent circumstances must be present to justify a warrantless [Page 484]search of a vehicle. This has been interpreted by some to mean that the police must demonstrate some emergency situation to justify the search in addition to the probable cause requirement. This analysis is incorrect. The very fact that an automobile is readily movable provides the necessary exigency. If the vehicle is not readily movable, then exigent circumstances must be articulated by the police. For example, in California v. Carney (1985), the Court stated that a motor home connected to utilities and elevated on blocks would not be considered readily movable, and thus a search warrant would be required.

...