Opinion ID: 814569
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Search of Lawing’s Vehicle

Text: Lawing also contends police lacked the requisite probable cause to search his vehicle. Police typically must obtain a warrant to carry out a search, but an exception to the warrant requirement has long been recognized where probable cause is established to believe that a vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925) (holding contraband goods concealed and illegally transported in an automobile or other vehicle may be searched for without a warrant). Probable cause is not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983). It is determined by examining facts from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer. Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 696. Probable cause is established in those cases when the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found. Id. Lawing argues that there was not a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in his vehicle. Cf. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238. As recounted above, the totality of the circumstances gave the police reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and seize the cell phone. Indeed, prior to Lawing’s cell phone ringing, the predictive information provided by the CI had been almost entirely born out by the facts as observed by police. All that remained was for the officers to verify that the individual driving the Lexus was the same person from whom the CI had offered to purchase cocaine vehicle where it rested when the vehicle was stopped had it not been handed over to the officers. (J.A. 149). In light of our holding that the limited seizure of the cell phone was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, we need not consider the district court’s alternative holding that Lawing was, in any event, not prejudiced by the seizure. 14 UNITED STATES v. LAWING base, thus tipping the scales from reasonable suspicion to probable cause. When police called the number provided by the CI and twice observed Lawing’s cell phone ringing, they verified that Lawing was the target of their investigation, and established a substantial likelihood that Lawing was trafficking in contraband, that is, they now possessed probable cause. The facts and circumstances in this case were thus sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in Lawing’s vehicle. Because the stop and search of Lawing’s car and the seizure of Lawing’s cell phone did not violate Lawing’s Fourth Amendment rights, the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress.