U.S. 132, 151
463 Perhaps the Court fears that defendants will attempt similar post hoc reasoning and argue that, when the police have searched only a container, rather than the whole car, they must have had probable cause only to search the container. 433
. 462 Chimel v. California, supra, at 762-763; People v. Chiagles, supra, (collecting authority).
453 carry its burden of demonstrating the need for warrantless searches of luggage properly taken from automobiles." (1983). Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of law school study materials, including 726 video lessons and 5,100+ practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. U.S. 367 Unlike an automobile, luggage can easily be seized and detained pending judicial approval of a search. Acevedo was knocked to the ground and attempted to push multiple attackers away, but was unable to do so. U.S. 616, 624 [500 luggage "under their exclusive control, there [i]s not the slightest danger that the [luggage] or its contents could [be] removed before a valid search warrant could be obtained. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case The Court also justifies its claim that its holding inflicts only minor damage by suggesting that, under New York v. Belton, Dissenters in Ross asked why the suitcase in Sanders was "more private, less difficult for police to seize and store, or in 442 389
In all but one, the government was the petitioner. U.S. 565, 579] Robert M. Foster, Supervising Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioner. Because the police can seize the container which is the object of their search, they have no need either to search or to seize the entire vehicle. 456 Acevedo and his friends left the party, but later returned, and a second argument ensued. In United States v. Ross, Until today, this Court has drawn a curious line between the search of an automobile that coincidentally turns up a container and the search of a container that coincidentally turns up in an automobile. U.S. 383, 389 In Castleberry, we affirmed by an equally divided court.
See, e.g., United States v. Di Re, We conclude that it is better to adopt one clear-cut rule to govern automobile searches and eliminate the warrant requirement for closed containers set forth in Sanders.
Pp. 469 See Chambers v. Maroney, [399 . But the supposed "general
(1982), represent a fair accommodation [500 The agent informed Coleman that he had seized a package containing marijuana which was to have been delivered to the Federal Express Office in Santa Ana and which was addressed to J.R. Daza at 805 West Stevens Avenue in that city. Ante, at 575. U.S. 565, 586] U.S. 798 Statement of the facts: Prior to obtaining a search warrant, officers watched a man walk into his home while carrying a package which officers had probable cause to believe contained marijuana inside.
welfare searches . 462 U.S. 213 To the extent there was any "anomaly" in our prior jurisprudence, the Court has "cured" it at the expense of creating a more serious paradox. (1984); Oliver v. United States, together with Maine v. Thornton, That result illustrates this Court's continued struggle with the scope of the automobile exception, rather than the absence of confusion in applying it. (1983), we held that, although reasonable suspicion justifies the temporary detention of an airline passenger's luggage, the seizure in that particular case was unreasonable because of the prolonged delay in ascertaining the existence of probable cause. The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. (1982), and Carroll v. United States, JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting. And, under our precedents, upon arrival at the station house, the police may inventory his possessions, including the briefcase, even if there is no reason to suspect that they contain contraband. Rptr.
(1981), the Court said: That privacy interest has been recognized repeatedly in cases spanning more than a century. Finding that the officers had probable cause to believe that the bag contained drugs but lacked probable cause to suspect that the car, itself, otherwise contained contraband, the court concluded that the case was controlled by United States v. Chadwick,
Rather, the United States urged that the search of movable luggage could be considered analogous to the search of an automobile. [ Even before today's decision, the "warrant requirement" had become so riddled with exceptions that it was basically unrecognizable. We first held that the privacy interest in luggage is "substantially greater than in an automobile." The Court refined the exigency requirement in Chambers v. Maroney, . 471 469 (1983); United States v. Knotts,
[ Cf. at 25. A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. 9 -469, n. 12 (1983). This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Footnote 1 -812. (1978), quoting Katz v. United States, to Pet. U.S. 696
App. 473
480 494 Thus, all of the relevant facts that governed our decisions in Chadwick and Sanders are present here, whereas the relevant fact that justified the vehicle search in Ross is not present. He then pleaded guilty, but appealed the denial of the suppression motion. Thus, the search could encompass containers, which might or might not conceal the object of the search, as well as the remainder of the vehicle. [500 (1985); United States v. Leon, According to prosecution witnesses, one of Acevedo’s friends punched McCullough, McCullough challenged Acevedo to a one-on-one fight outside, and only McCullough and Acevedo were involved in the physical fight. Rptr. 1982). (1981): [ After arresting him, they opened the trunk, seized the suitcases, and searched them without a warrant. (1983); United States v. Place, Even accepting Belton's application to a case like this one, however, the Court's logic extends its holding to a container placed in the trunk of a vehicle, rather than in the passenger compartment. Agreeing as I do with most of JUSTICE STEVENS' opinion and with the result he reaches, I dissent and would affirm the judgment below.
U.S. 565, 590] . Once the police have Acevedo walked to a silver Honda in the parking lot. (1967) (footnote omitted). The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, concluded that the marijuana found in the paper bag in the car's trunk should have been suppressed. [500 ] See id., at 10-11. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 581.