Opinion ID: 160847
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Probable Cause to Search the Car

Text: The government also argued below that the search of the woman's rental car was supported by probable cause and that a search warrant was not necessary to conduct the search because the car presented exigent circumstances. The district court made no finding of probable cause to search the vehicle, relying instead on the conclusion that the search was made incident to Edwards' arrest. Under the Fourth Amendment, the police may conduct a warrantless search where they have probable cause to search the area in question and exigent circumstances exist to make the warrant requirement impractical. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). In the context of vehicle searches, a warrantless search is permissible if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 392, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985); United States v. Crabb, 952 F.2d 1245, 1246 (10th Cir.1991). In addition, if there is probable cause to search a vehicle, the police are allowed to search any package within the vehicle that is capable of concealing the object of the search. See Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 307, 119 S.Ct. 1297, 143 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999). Accordingly, despite the fact that this was not a valid search incident to arrest and not an inventory search, the search may nevertheless be justified if we find that it was supported by probable cause. Although this is a much closer issue, we cannot affirm the district court's ruling on this alternative ground. Probable cause to search a vehicle is established if, under the `totality of the circumstances[,]' there is a `fair probability' that the car contains contraband or evidence. United States v. Nielsen, 9 F.3d 1487, 1489-90 (10th Cir.1993). Edwards and the woman were not arrested in or near the vehicle and, although they were carrying what appeared to be contraband in the woman's camera bag, there was no testimony presented at the suppression hearing that would support a belief by the police that additional contraband or evidence could be found in the vehicle. [10] Furthermore, by the time the police decided to search the rental car, the police were aware that the City National Bank had not been robbed, making it even less likely that traditional tools of robbery (such as guns or disguises) might be found in the vehicle. In short, we see no evidence from which the police could have deduced a fair probability that a search of the car would reveal contraband or further evidence of criminal activity. For these reasons, we find that the search of the rental car was not supported by probable cause. We therefore need not determine whether exigent circumstances existed to justify an immediate search of the vehicle.