Court Opinion

ID: 9727203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:25:47.580819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:34.802523
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE MORAN delivered the opinion of the court: The State has filed a petition for rehearing claiming that we misinterpreted the holding of the plurality opinion in the Coolidge case. It is argued that Mr. Justice Stewart’s interpretation of Chambers in Coolidge would validate a warrantless search of Emert’s car on October 2, 1969. We disagree. Mr. Justice White, in his dissenting opinion in Coolidge has best explained our conclusion when at page 616 he stated: * * But Chambers did not authorize indefinite detention of automobile so seized; it contemplated some expedition in completing the searches so that automobiles could be released and returned to their owners * * *” and continuing at page 617 said: “The majority now approves warrantless searches of vehicles in motion when seized. On the other hand, warrantless, probable cause searches of parked but movable vehicles in some situations would be valid only upon proof of exigent circumstances justifying the search.” (Emphasis added.) The term “exigent circumstances” seems to be the key factor in determining when a warrantless search of an automobile is authorized. We find no exigent circumstances in the record before us and therefore adhere to our original opinion. The petition for rehearing is denied. GUILD and STROUSE, JJ., concur.