Opinion ID: 1437585
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Warrantless Seizure of Guns and Drugs from the Car Based on Probable Cause: The Automobile Exception

Text: The next question is whether the police acted lawfully when they proceeded to search Speight's car without obtaining a warrant. [5] The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. In the interests of protecting this fundamental right, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to incorporate a general rule that searches and seizures be conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by an independent judicial officer. California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 2068, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985); see Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 735, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1540, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (Rehnquist, J.) (procedure by way of a warrant is preferred). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has recognized a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement: exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, search of the person and surrounding area incident to arrest, search at the national border or functional equivalent, plain view, and  the exception at issue here  the automobile exception. See Brown, 460 U.S. at 735-36, 103 S.Ct. at 1540 (citing, among others, United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51-52, 72 S.Ct. 93, 95-96, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951) (exigent circumstances); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967) (hot pursuit); New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981) (search of person and surrounding area incident to arrest); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (search at national border or functional equivalent); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (plain view); United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982) (automobile exception)). The Supreme Court announced the automobile exception in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153-54, 45 S.Ct. 280, 285, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), where the Court stressed that a motor vehicle was different from a store, dwelling house, or other structure ... because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Id. at 153, 45 S.Ct. at 285. The Court accordingly held that, if the search and seizure without a warrant are made upon probable cause, that is, upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains that which by law is subject to seizure and destruction, the search and seizure are valid. Id. at 149, 45 S.Ct. at 283-84. The Supreme Court's original justification for the automobile exception focused on the mobility of motor vehicles. See Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 366-67, 84 S.Ct. 881, 882-83, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964) (Common sense dictates, of course, that questions involving searches of motorcars or other things readily moved cannot be treated as identical to questions arising out of searches of fixed structures like houses. For this reason, what may be an unreasonable search of a house may be reasonable in the case of a motorcar.); Carroll, 267 U.S. at 153-54, 45 S.Ct. at 285 (noting that warrantless searches of vehicles may be more reasonable than other warrantless searches given the mobility of motor vehicles). Later Supreme Court cases have stressed that the lesser expectation of privacy in vehicles is also attributable to the pervasive regulation of motor vehicles and to the fact that the passenger compartment of a standard automobile is relatively open to plain view. Carney, 471 U.S. at 391-92, 105 S.Ct. at 2069-70; see Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 2528, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973). [6] The Court has added that a lesser expectation of privacy in motor vehicles is warranted, moreover, because police-citizen contact with motor vehicles is often necessary to permit the uninterrupted flow of traffic and to manage vehicles that are disabled, damaged, or in violation of parking ordinances. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 368-69, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3096-97, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); see Cady, 413 U.S. at 441, 93 S.Ct. at 2528. Throughout this line of automobile exception cases justifying warrantless searches, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Fourth Amendment requires courts to weigh the need for public safety against the protection of privacy interests. In particular, the Court has repeatedly relied on the potential presence of weapons in determining the legality of vehicle searches. See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. at 1046, 103 S.Ct. at 3479 (approving warrantless search of automobile passenger compartment based on reasonable belief that suspect may gain immediate control of weapons); New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. at 460, 101 S.Ct. at 2864 (upholding search of car interior incident to arrest as being within area where arrestee might reach for weapon); Cady, 413 U.S. at 448, 93 S.Ct. at 2531 (upholding warrantless search of automobile trunk reasonably believed to contain gun). In Opperman, for example, the Court noted the importance public safety played in deciding to uphold a warrantless search of a vehicle in Cady. According to Opperman, the Court in Cady had upheld a warrantless search of an automobile towed to a private garage even though no probable cause existed to believe that the vehicle contained fruits of a crime. The sole justification for the warrantless intrusion was that it was incident to the care-taking function of the local police to protect the community's safety. Indeed, the protective search was instituted solely because local police were under the impression that the incapacitated driver, a Chicago police officer, was required to carry his service revolver at all times; the police had reasonable grounds to believe a weapon might be in the car, and thus available to vandals. Opperman, 428 U.S. at 374, 96 S.Ct. at 3099-3100 (emphasis added). The Court also noted the lack of the probable presence of weapons as a factor in determining that a particular warrantless search of a vehicle was unreasonable in Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 460, 91 S.Ct. at 2035 (holding warrantless search illegal where the objects that the police are assumed to have had probable cause to search for in the car were neither stolen nor contraband nor dangerous), and in Preston, 376 U.S. at 368, 84 S.Ct. at 883 (holding warrantless search illegal where there was no danger that any of the men arrested could have used any weapons in the car). The Supreme Court has not yet addressed the question presented here: whether the police may conduct a warrantless search of an unoccupied, operable vehicle lawfully parked on a public street based on probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. [7] A number of federal circuit courts of appeals, however, recently have sustained such searches. [8] See United States v. Reed, 26 F.3d 523, 530 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1116, 130 L.Ed.2d 1080 (1995) (holding exigent circumstances justified warrantless search of vehicle parked in driveway); United States v. Hatley, 15 F.3d 856, 858-59 (9th Cir.1994) (upholding warrantless search of apparently operable vehicle parked on driveway); United States v. Foxworth, 8 F.3d 540, 545 (7th Cir.1993) (upholding warrantless search of car parked in motel parking lot); United States v. Horne, 4 F.3d 579, 585 (8th Cir. 1993) (Under the so-called automobile exception, an automobile on a public street may be searched without a warrant as long as the searching agents have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found in the vehicle.); United States v. McCoy, 977 F.2d 706, 710 (1st Cir.1992) (probable cause alone justifies a warrantless search of a motor vehicle seized without a warrant while parked in a public place, `whether or not exigent circumstances prevailed at either the time of the seizure or the time of the search') (quoting United States v. Panitz, 907 F.2d 1267, 1272 (1st Cir.1990)); United States v. Wider, 293 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 19, 951 F.2d 1283, 1286 (1991) (upholding warrantless search of suspect's unoccupied vehicle parked 35 feet from place where suspect was arrested). [9] The principles established in the Supreme Court's automobile exception cases, as applied to the facts here, dictate the result here; they demonstrate that the police acted reasonably, based on probable cause without need for a warrant, when searching the Dodge Aspen. First, the police were faced with exigent circumstances. [10] The Dodge Aspen was parked on a public street and appeared capable of being driven away at any moment. Although the police had detained Speight and Smith, nothing prevented confederates or adversaries from gaining access to the car. See Thomas, 458 U.S. at 261 n. 2, 102 S.Ct. at 3081 n. 2 (noting exigency in the fact that there was a clear possibility that the occupants of the vehicle could have had unknown confederates who would return to remove the secreted contraband). Furthermore, the report that the vehicle contained weapons justifiably increased the level of concern for public safety. [11] Finally, the intrusion involved in searching a car parked on a public street is only minimally greater than the intrusion required when police hold a car until they can obtain a search warrant. In Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the warrantless search of a car lawfully transported to the police station. The Court reasoned: For constitutional purposes, we see no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding a car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and on the other hand carrying out an immediate search without a warrant. Given probable cause to search, either course is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 52, 90 S.Ct. at 1981. In the present case, the intrusion involved in detaining the car parked on the street while officers obtained a warrant would not have been much less than the intrusion occasioned by the officers' earlier, warrantless search of the vehicle based on probable cause. [12] Having concluded that the police may conduct a warrantless search of an apparently functional vehicle parked on a public street if they have probable cause that the vehicle contains weapons, we now consider whether the police here had such probable cause. We note, initially, that the police invaded no privacy interest by approaching a vehicle parked on a public street and smelling the air emanating from the vehicle. An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in property only when manifesting a subjective expectation of privacy that society accepts as objectively reasonable. See California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 39-40, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 1628-29, 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage placed outside home). Nothing appellants did manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the outside of the Dodge Aspen parked on a city street, and in any event society would not accept any such expectation as objectively reasonable. Cf., e.g., Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 740, 103 S.Ct. at 1542 (There is no legitimate expectation of privacy shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which may be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers. (citations omitted)). Appellants had no expectation of privacy in the distinctive smell of PCP emanating from the vehicle, and thus the police officers' smelling the air coming from the vehicle did not implicate any constitutionally protected privacy interest. See United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d 1523, 1527 (10th Cir.1993) (holding that even random and suspicionless dog sniffs are not searches subject to the Fourth Amendment); United States v. Friend, 50 F.3d 548, 552 (8th Cir. 1995) (legitimate expectation of privacy regarding [defendant's] parked car did not extend to the uniquely limited intrusiveness of a dog sniff). The smell of PCP emanating from the car partially corroborated the anonymous tip. The smell of PCP not only gave the police probable cause to believe that an additional fact alleged in the tip was true, see Minnick v. United States, 607 A.2d 519, 525 (D.C. 1992) (distinctive smell of PCP alone sufficient probable cause to search occupied vehicle), but also suggested that the tipster had inside information about the contents of the car. The PCP smell, therefore, provided the anonymous tip with a greater indicia of reliability than it had demonstrated previously. By the time the police searched the vehicle, the tip reliably had described the appearance of the suspects, and the location of the vehicle, and thus reasonably had suggested to the police that the car contained drugs. The tip, therefore, also provided police with increasingly reliable information that the car contained weapons. In sum, the combination of the informant's detailed tip  now partially corroborated by inside information  the report of weapons in the car, and the smell of PCP emanating from the car gave the police probable cause to believe that the blue Dodge Aspen contained contraband. The trial court, therefore, did not err in denying appellants' motions to suppress the guns and drugs evidence obtained from the search of the Dodge Aspen.