Court Opinion

ID: 9428784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:24:46.914537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:15.302787
License: Public Domain

*826Justice Powell,
concurring.
In my opinion in Robbins v. California, 453 U. S. 420, 429 (1981), concurring in the judgment, I stated that the judgment was justified, though not compelled, by the Court’s opinion in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753 (1979). I did not agree, however, with the “bright line” rule articulated by the plurality opinion. Rather, I repeated the view I long have held that one’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” is a particularly relevant factor in determining the validity of a warrantless search. I have recognized that, with respect to automobiles in general, this expectation can be only a limited one. See Arkansas v. Sanders, supra, at 761; Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266, 279 (1973) (Powell, J., concurring). I continue to think that in many situations one’s reasonable expectation of privacy may be a decisive factor in a search case.
It became evident last Term, however, from the five opinions written in Robbins — in none of which The Chief Justice joined — that it is essential to have a Court opinion in automobile search cases that provides “specific guidance to police and courts in this recurring situation.” Robbins v. California, supra, at 435 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment). The Court’s opinion today, written by Justice Stevens and now joined by The Chief Justice and four other Justices, will afford this needed guidance. It is fair also to say that, given Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925), and Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42 (1970), the Court’s decision does not depart substantially from Fourth Amendment doctrine in automobile cases. Moreover, in enunciating a readily understood and applied rule, today’s decision is consistent with the similar step taken last Term in New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981).
I join the Court’s opinion.