Opinion ID: 1678904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: vehicle searches

Text: The Supreme Court, in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), held that, when police officers have probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband, a vehicular search by officers without a warrant is reasonable under the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Carroll, the Court found that officers had probable cause to search a car for alcohol and, therefore, justification for ripping the car's upholstery to locate concealed whiskey. The Court in Carroll observed: On reason and authority the true rule is 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. The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens. 267 U.S. at 149, 45 S.Ct. at 284. It then concluded: [T]he facts and circumstances within [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that intoxicating liquor was being transported in the automobile which they stopped and searched. 267 U.S. at 162, 45 S.Ct. at 288. In United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982), police officers, with probable cause to search an automobile for narcotics, searched inside a brown paper bag and a zippered red leather pouch found in the automobile's trunk. With the background of Carroll, the Supreme Court discussed the nature of probable cause which justified a warrantless vehicle search: [T]he probable-cause determination must be based on objective facts that could justify the issuance of a warrant by a magistrate and not merely on the subjective good faith of the police officers.... In short, the exception to the warrant requirement established in Carroll ... applies only to searches of vehicles that are supported by probable cause. In this class of cases, a search is not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not actually been obtained. 456 U.S. at 808-09, 102 S.Ct. at 2164-65. Referring to Carroll, the Court in Ross noted: The scope of the search was no greater than a magistrate could have authorized by issuing a warrant based on the probable cause that justified the search. Since such a warrant could have authorized the agents to open the rear portion of the roadster and to rip the upholstery in their search for concealed whiskey, the search was constitutionally permissible. .... In its application of Carroll, this Court in fact has sustained warrantless searches of containers found during a lawful search of an automobile. In Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 51 S.Ct. 240, 75 L.Ed. 629 (1931), the Court upheld a warrantless seizure of whiskey found during a search of an automobile, some of which was discovered in whiskey bags that could have contained other goods. In Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 59 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed. 151 (1938), federal officers seized and searched packages of unstamped liquor found in the trunk of an automobile searched without a warrant. 456 U.S. at 818-19, 102 S.Ct. at 2169-70. The Ross Court continued: As we have stated, the decision in Carroll was based on the Court's appraisal of practical considerations viewed in the perspective of history. It is therefore significant that the practical consequences of the Carroll decision would be largely nullified if the permissible scope of a warrantless search of an automobile did not include containers and packages found inside the vehicle.... The Court in Carroll held that contraband goods concealed and illegally transported in an automobile or other vehicle may be searched for without a warrant. 267 U.S., at 153, 45 S.Ct. at 285 (emphasis added). As we noted in Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 104, 80 S.Ct. 168, 172, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959), the decision in Carroll merely relaxed the requirements for a warrant on grounds of practicability. It neither broadened nor limited the scope of a lawful search based on probable cause. 456 U.S. at 820, 102 S.Ct. at 2170. In reaffirming the constitutional validity of a vehicular search such as that considered in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), the Supreme Court in Ross concluded: [A]n individual's expectation of privacy in a vehicle and its contents may not survive if probable cause is given to believe that the vehicle is transporting contraband. Certainly the privacy interests in a car's trunk or glove compartment may be no less than those in a movable container. An individual undoubtedly has a significant interest that the upholstery of his automobile will not be ripped or a hidden compartment within it opened. These interests must yield to the authority of a search, however, which in light of Carroll does not itself require the prior approval of a magistrate. The scope of a warrantless search based on probable cause is no narrower and no broaderthan the scope of a search authorized by a warrant supported by probable cause. Only the prior approval of the magistrate is waived; the search otherwise is as the magistrate could authorize. The scope of a warrantless search of an automobile thus is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 823-24, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2172-73, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). Finally, the Court in United States v. Ross held: The exception recognized in Carroll is unquestionably one that is specifically established and well delineated. We hold that the scope of the warrantless search authorized by that exception is no broader and no narrower than a magistrate could legitimately authorize by warrant. If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search. 456 U.S. at 825, 102 S.Ct. at 2173. This court has previously relied on the vehicle exception to a search warrant requirement, exemplified by Ross, in upholding searches of containers found during a probable cause search of a vehicle. In State v. McGuire, 218 Neb. 511, 357 N.W. 2d 192 (1984), the search of luggage inside an automobile's trunk was reasonable when the searching police officer had probable cause to search the car for a .45 automatic reportedly carried by the defendant. In State v. Hansen, 221 Neb. 103, 375 N.W.2d 605 (1985), the search of the defendant's purse found inside her car was reasonable when the searching officer had probable cause to search the car for a controlled substance which could have been secreted in a small container.... 221 Neb. at 109, 375 N.W.2d at 610. If a reasonable person, viewing all the objective circumstances encountered by a law enforcement officer and considering the officer's possession of reasonably trustworthy information, would believe that a vehicle likely contained contraband or other evidence of criminal activity, a law enforcement officer has probable cause to search the vehicle notwithstanding the absence of a search warrant. State v. Aden, 196 Neb. 149, 241 N.W.2d 669 (1976); United States v. Ross, supra ; Carroll v. United States, supra . The scope of a warrantless search of a vehicle, as in a search pursuant to a warrant, is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. Just as probable cause to believe that a stolen lawnmower may be found in a garage will not support a warrant to search an upstairs bedroom, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase. United States v. Ross, supra 456 U.S. at 824, 102 S.Ct. at 2172. We need not decide whether Deputy Mayer had probable cause to search Hoer's car and the cardboard box found inside the car in an effort to locate some unspecified controlled substance, because we find that Mayer's discovery of the methamphetamine was the result of a probable cause search for alcohol in Hoer's automobile. Mayer smelled alcohol coming from Hoer's automobile and breath, saw Hoer fail the field sobriety tests, witnessed Hoer's failure of the preliminary breath test, and knew from the displayed operator's license that Hoer was underage for possession of alcohol. Given these facts, a reasonable person would conclude that a search of the automobile would likely reveal alcohol possessed by a minor in violation of § 53-180.02. Therefore, Mayer had probable cause to search for alcohol in the automobile operated by Hoer, who was a minor. Cf., State v. Peterson, 407 N.W.2d 221 (S.D.1987) (odor of alcohol from car and driver gave probable cause to search for violations of open container law); State v. Schinzing, 342 N.W.2d 105 (Minn. 1983) (odor of alcohol from car gave probable cause to search for violations of open container law). With probable cause to search for alcohol in Hoer's automobile, Mayer was authorized to search inside the car for anything which might serve as an alcohol container, including the cardboard box found under the front passenger's seat inasmuch as the cardboard box was capable of concealing a small bottle or container of alcohol. United States v. Ross, supra .