Opinion ID: 1965440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Controlling Legal Authorities

Text: The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and its counterpart in the Michigan Constitution guarantee the right of persons to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const., Am. IV [3] ; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11. The right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures absent a warrant based upon probable cause is subject to several specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. People v. Davis, 442 Mich. 1, 10, 497 N.W.2d 910 (1993). Probable cause to issue a search warrant exists where there is a substantial basis for inferring a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. People v. Russo, 439 Mich. 584, 604, 487 N.W.2d 698 (1992). [4] Generally, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible as substantive evidence in criminal proceedings. In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich. 261, 265, 505 N.W.2d 201 (1993). [5] In order to show that a search was in compliance with the Fourth Amendment, the police must show either that they had a warrant or that their conduct fell within one of the narrow, specific exceptions to the warrant requirement. Davis, supra at 10, 497 N.W.2d 910. One of the well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement is known as the automobile or motor vehicle exception. As explained in Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940, 116 S.Ct. 2485, 135 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1996), the automobile exception is premised on an automobile's ready mobility and pervasive regulation, and if 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. [6] Thus, under the automobile exception, the police may search a motor vehicle without the necessity of first obtaining a warrant if probable cause to support the search exists.