Opinion ID: 2959836
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Warrantless Automobile Searches

Text: Both searches at issue here implicate the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. Warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.” Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 454-55. Under the automobile exception, “police may conduct a warrantless search of a readily mobile motor vehicle if probable cause exists to believe the vehicle contains contraband or other evidence of a crime.” United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 456 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 (1996) (per curiam)). The Supreme Court has justified the automobile exception under two distinct theories: First, the Court has noted that a person’s expectation of privacy in a vehicle is less than his or her expectation of privacy in a home, see Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590 (1974), and, second, the Court has held that because a vehicle is readily movable, exigent circumstances might require a warrantless search, see Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925). As discussed above, the district court suppressed the evidence derived from the two warrantless searches at issue for a variety of reasons, which essentially boil down to these three propositions: (1) the vehicles searched were not inherently mobile because they were parked on the side of the Thruway while their drivers were some distance away at a police barracks; (2) there was ample time to procure a warrant because surveillance of the defendants had been ongoing for some time prior to the traffic stops; and (3) there was no notice provided to the drivers that a search had been conducted. Finally, Restifo offers other justifications for -12- suppression, namely that clandestine or surreptitious searches always require notice and a warrant and cannot involve seizure of goods. For the reasons to be discussed, we disagree with each of these arguments.
The government argues that the defendants’ physical distance from the vehicles and the government’s control of the vehicles as they were being searched does nothing to mitigate the application of the automobile exception, which, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, does not turn on the immediate mobility of the automobile. Rather, the government relies on the Supreme Court’s statement in United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982), that, where there is probable cause to search a vehicle, “a search is not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not been actually obtained.” Id. at 809. The government notes that the district court relied almost exclusively on the Supreme Court’s 1971 decision in Coolidge, and contends that Coolidge has been significantly eroded by more recent developments in Fourth Amendment law, namely Ross and its progeny. The defendants generally counter that the automobile exception is justified by vehicles’ mobility, and that their vehicles were not “readily mobile” within the meaning of the relevant caselaw because the defendants had been taken away from their vehicles, had no notice of the search, and could not have moved the vehicles even if they had wanted to do so. The district court’s finding that the defendants’ temporary, voluntary presence in the police barracks for questioning pursuant to the ruse meant that the vehicles were not readily mobile, and that searches of them were therefore not within the automobile exception, was in error for two reasons. First, the district court erred in determining that the vehicles were not -13- readily mobile within the meaning of the automobile exception simply on the ground that the drivers and passenger were with police officers at their barracks, undergoing questioning concerning the ruse developed by the officers. Whether a vehicle is “readily mobile” within the meaning of the automobile exception has more to do with the inherent mobility of the vehicle than with the potential for the vehicle to be moved from the jurisdiction, thereby precluding a search. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 50-51 (1970) (distinguishing a car, which is “readily movable,” from a “fixed piece of property”). The district court’s reading of “ready mobility” is in error because the district court appeared to regard the actual ability of a driver or passenger to flee immediately in the car, or the likelihood of him or her doing so, as a requirement for the application of the automobile exception. We rejected such a reading of “ready mobility” in United States v. Vassiliou, 820 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1987). Vassiliou was a contractor working for the United States on a military base. Following a fight with a subcontractor while on the base, the two were led to the military police station to settle the dispute. The subcontractor alleged that Vassiliou had pulled a gun on him and then hid the gun in the car. Based on this information, the military police conducted a warrantless search of Vassiliou’s vehicle and found the gun. Vassiliou sought to suppress the weapon, contending that the automobile exception did not apply “because his car was on a military outpost over which the military police had plenary jurisdiction and therefore was not mobile.” Id. at 30 (internal quotation marks omitted). He argued that, “[b]ecause entry to and exit from the post were controlled by the military police . . . he could not simply have driven away.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We rejected Vassiliou’s argument and affirmed the district court’s denial of Vassiliou’s suppression motion because, regardless of the military’s -14- plenary control over the base, “Vassiliou could have left the military police station while a warrant was being obtained and disposed of the gun elsewhere on the base.” Id. We determined that the facts presented comprised “precisely the sort of exigent circumstances resulting from the automobile’s inherent mobility that the Supreme Court has recognized as justifying the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. Like the defendants in the instant case, Vassiliou effectively claimed that he could not have accessed his car because he was in police custody, and that the vehicle was therefore not “readily mobile” as contemplated by the automobile exception cases. And indeed, like Vassiliou’s detention by military police on the base, the detention of the defendants in this case prevented them from accessing their vehicles. But just as the automobile exception was applicable in Vassiliou’s case, it applies here. Even where there is little practical likelihood that the vehicle will be driven away, the exception applies at least when that possibility exists. In this case, the police could not lawfully have detained the defendants in the police station had they not consented to remain there. Furthermore, the possibility existed that confederates in another car, of whom the police were unaware, might have observed the police intervention and might drive the car away. The district court erred in determining that the relative inaccessibility of the vehicles, occasioned by the defendants’ undergoing questioning at the police barracks, was sufficient to bring this search outside the ambit of the automobile exception. Thus we need not opine broadly on the continuing vitality of Coolidge, because our caselaw interpreting it has made clear that the district court’s understanding of “ready mobility” was in error. We additionally observe that the district court’s reasoning goes too far and would, if adopted, impermissibly graft onto the automobile exception a requirement of some additional -15- exigency beyond the inherent mobility of an operational vehicle—in this case, the immediate likelihood of the defendants returning to their vehicles and speeding away in them. In United States v. Ross, the Supreme Court made clear that a warrantless search would not violate the Fourth Amendment if there was probable cause to search a vehicle, “even though a warrant ha[d] not actually been obtained.” Ross, 456 U.S. at 809. The Supreme Court has reiterated this rule in subsequent cases, noting in Pennsylvania v. Labron that “[i]f a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment . . . permits police to search the vehicle without more,” 518 U.S. at 940, and in Maryland v. Dyson that no special exigency is required beyond a showing of the mobility of the automobile. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467 (1999) (per curiam). Thus, the district court’s inquiry into the existence of an additional exigency in this case—that is, the proximity of the drivers and passenger to the vehicles—is misplaced. The mere inherent mobility of the vehicle is sufficient to constitute the “ready mobility” the automobile exception cognizes. Second, the district court ignored the fact that the automobile exception has been justified by the Supreme Court not only because of automobiles’ ready mobility, but also because of the diminished expectation of privacy drivers and passengers enjoy while traveling in them. As the Supreme Court observed in California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985), “[e]ven in cases where an automobile was not immediately mobile, the lesser expectation of privacy resulting from its use as a readily mobile vehicle justified application of the vehicular exception.” Id. at 391. Thus even if the vehicles searched in the case at bar were not “readily mobile” within the meaning of the automobile exception, a warrantless search of them would be justified based on the diminished expectation of privacy enjoyed by the drivers and passenger while traveling on the -16- Thruway.
The district court made much of the fact that a substantial amount of time had passed between the intercepted phone calls, the initiation of surveillance of the defendants and the vehicle searches. With respect to Howard,1 the district court noted that investigators knew of his involvement in the drug trafficking conspiracy by April 26, 2004, because of phone calls they had intercepted. The investigators were aware of Howard’s participation in the particular drug transaction at issue at least as early as May 19, 2004, at 1:50 p.m., when an intercepted call indicated that Howard was planning a drug deal. There were three more intercepted calls over the next twenty hours, and surveillance began the following day, continuing until the traffic stop at approximately 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. The alleged narcotics transaction took place some time shortly after 4:45 p.m., meaning that one to two more hours transpired between observation of the alleged narcotics transaction and the traffic stop. Based on this passage of time, the district court found that there was “no way that it could be said that insufficient time had elapsed in which to present the facts to a neutral magistrate and obtain a search warrant.” Howard, 406 F. Supp. 2d at 224. The district court made a similar finding with respect to Williams, who was implicated in the drug conspiracy as early as April 23, 2004. With regard to the particular transaction giving rise to the traffic stop, Williams was being surveilled beginning 4:30 a.m. on the morning of June 1, 2004, and, by about 6:30 a.m., inspectors deduced that he was driving his mother’s car to 1 The district court did not make particularized findings concerning the timing of police surveillance of Restifo. -17- procure cocaine in New York City. An intercepted call indicated that Williams was leaving New York City at approximately 9:30 p.m. to return to Schnectady. As the district court noted, “[a]t this point, about 16 hours had elapsed since the surveillance started. At least several hours elapsed between when it was deduced that Williams was in the process of purchasing cocaine in New York City and probably was driving a gold Stratus, and when his vehicle was stopped.” Id. at 225. There was yet another hour between the positive identification of Williams in his mother’s gold Stratus and the traffic stop. Once Williams accompanied the police to the barracks, he “was under the complete control of the officers while his vehicle was fully secured by the investigatory team on the Thruway.” Id. The district court further noted that during the time the ruse was being developed, the investigatory team had sufficient time to contact the United States Attorney’s office to discuss its plan, implicitly suggesting that it believed the team could have procured a warrant if it had tried to do so. The passage of so much time suggested to the district court that a warrant could have been procured to search the vehicles, and that the failure to procure one rendered the search constitutionally defective. However, as noted, the Supreme Court has made clear that an automobile “search is not unreasonable if based upon facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not been actually obtained.” Dyson, 527 U.S. at 467 (quoting Ross, 456 U.S. at 809). As discussed above, there was ample probable cause to support these searches, and a disinterested magistrate judge assuredly would have issued a warrant had one been sought. But within the context of the automobile exception, a reasonable search does not become unreasonable because law enforcement officials lacked a warrant. The district court erred in holding to the contrary. -18-
The district court stated that “[a] hallmark justification for the automobile exception is that the occupants of the vehicle are alerted to the search.” Howard, 406 F. Supp. 2d at 225-26. In its view, in the absence of a determination by a neutral magistrate that there was probable cause to issue a warrant, this notice requirement serves to provide “[o]versight of law enforcement activities to protect the populace from unreasonable searches and seizures. . . . [W]hen the automobile is stopped, the driver is there to observe the search and may complain if it was unreasonable, whether because probable cause was lacking or for some other reason.” Id. at 226. The government contends that there is no such requirement in the caselaw. The district court’s conclusory statement on this point is unavailing. In asserting that notice is a “hallmark justification” for the automobile exception, the district court relied solely on a citation to Coolidge, which, on our reading, offers no support for its position. Presumably, the district court’s citation to Coolidge meant to draw the reader’s attention to the Supreme Court’s statement that “exigent circumstances justify the warrantless search of an automobile stopped on the highway, where there is probable cause, because the car is movable, the occupants are alerted, and the car’s contents may never be found again if a warrant must be obtained.” Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 460 (quoting Chambers, 399 U.S. at 51) (internal quotation marks omitted). But this statement merely describes a particular set of exigent circumstances in which the warrantless search in Chambers was performed under the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception. The occupants’ lack of awareness that a search has been conducted does not necessitate either that a warrant be procured, or that the occupants be notified a search has taken place. Whatever this passage from Coolidge means, it certainly does not impose a constitutional notice requirement. -19- We thus agree with the government that the district court erred in holding that there was any notice requirement imposed by the Fourth Amendment on warrantless searches conducted pursuant to the automobile exception.
Restifo makes three additional arguments, which focus on the fact that the search of the vehicle in which he was traveling was not merely warrantless, but also surreptitious. He argues that (1) surreptitious searches always require a warrant; (2) the instant searches were “even more egregious” than conventional surreptitious searches because they involved the seizure of tangible property; and (3) surreptitious searches always involve notice requirements. In support of his first proposition, Restifo notes that “[s]urreptitious searches . . . have always required a warrant because the nature of such searches clearly requires the protection afforded by an independent arbiter.” But as the government notes, none of the cases he cites implicates the automobile exception or any other exceptions where the absence of a warrant is excused. All of the cases he cites perforce require a warrant because all searches require a warrant unless they are made pursuant to a small set of narrow exceptions, of which the automobile exception is one. See Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 454-55. The correlation between surreptitious searches and the presence of a warrant need not be converted into a requirement that surreptitious searches be conducted only pursuant to a warrant. Restifo’s second argument fails because of the nature of the property seized. Under normal circumstances the seizure of tangible property might make a search “more egregious” than a search that only results in the seizure of intangibles, as in the photographs of a person’s property in United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1337 (2d Cir. 1990). But the tangibles -20- seized here were contraband—drugs and large amounts of cash derived from the drug trade. We would be hard-pressed to recognize some sort of enhanced privacy interest in this contraband, and the police were well within their discretion to remove these items from the stream of public commerce. Moreover, even if the seizure of Restifo’s drugs and money were indeed “more egregious” than the seizure of intangible goods, this fact would do nothing to detract from the constitutionality of a search based on probable cause and conducted pursuant to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and upon which the Constitution imposes no notice requirement. Finally, with respect to notice, the numerous cases that Restifo cites uniformly discuss an inapposite set of facts: sneak-and-peek searches in which a warrant has been granted by the court and therefore, in compliance with the demands of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 and not the Constitution, notice of those surreptitious searches must be given at some time. See United States v. Pangburn, 983 F.2d 449, 453-55 (2d Cir. 1993). This requirement is not relevant where the existence of a warrant is excused on other grounds, namely pursuant to the automobile exception.2
As a final matter, we observe that, in the search of Howard’s vehicle, the team damaged the car and Howard’s pool cue to create the impression that a thief used the cue to pry open the glove compartment (the policy, presumably, having used undetectable methods). We express no opinion as to whether the damage done was excessive or unnecessary, and we underscore our 2 In its reply brief, the government makes the blanket argument that even if there had been a Fourth Amendment violation in the conduct of the searches, suppression would be an inappropriate remedy under Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 2164 (2006). We need not address this argument because we find no constitutional violation in the conduct of the warrantless vehicle searches. -21- view that the damage, excessive or otherwise, did nothing to detract from the reasonableness of the searches. But police should be mindful that “[e]xcessive or unnecessary destruction of property in the course of a search may violate the Fourth Amendment, even though the entry itself is lawful and the fruits of the search are not subject to suppression.” United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 71 (1998).