Opinion ID: 662299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exigency

Text: 11 Tilmon first argues that the warrantless search of his car was unreasonable because his car was locked and parked and therefor no exigent circumstances justified searching without a warrant. He contends that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement should apply only to moving cars, lawfully stopped by police, and not to parked cars or non-moving vehicles. While this might be a plausible restriction on police discretion, it is not a restriction courts have adopted. See United States v. Hatley, 999 F.2d 392, 394-95 (9th Cir.1993) (vehicle exception applies to inoperable vehicle); United States v. Hamilton, 792 F.2d 837, 843 (9th Cir.1986) (vehicle exception applies to car parked in private driveway). 5 Since cases have consistently concluded that the vehicle exception applies to inherently mobile vehicles, even if they are not moving when searched, we must conclude that the exception applies to Tilmon's parked car. Thus, if supported by probable cause, Rothans's search is legal.