Automobile Searches
The automobile exception lets police search a car without a warrant, but only when they have probable cause to believe the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime ar
12. Automobile Searches
The Fourth Amendment allows warrantless searches of automobiles if the police have probable cause to believe that the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime are in the car. 1 The Nevada FLE will not test knowledge of the incorporation doctrine. Instead, the exam will test only criminal procedure protections that have been applied to the states. For simplicity, this outline refers to Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment protections, rather than noting Fourteenth Amendment incorporation with respect to each tested principle. 44
- The automobile exception rests on these rationales offered by the Supreme Court: Individuals have a diminished expectation of privacy in cars, and the mobility of automobiles justifies police in acting quickly.
- Police may search any portion of the car, including closed containers in the car, that might harbor the suspected evidence.
- Probable cause means that police have used all the available information to establish clear facts or observations that would lead an objective observer to conclude that evidence of a crime will be found in the vehicle.
- Police may not search beyond the bounds of their probable cause.
- E.g., if police have probable cause to believe that a large suitcase containing contraband is in the car, they may only search areas where that suitcase could be stored.
- Once police find and seize that suitcase, moreover, they may not search the automobile further—unless another exception to the warrant requirement (such as the “plain view” exception discussed below) has arisen.
The automobile exception lets police search a car without a warrant, but only with probable cause to believe the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime are inside. The size and nature of what they are looking for draws the boundaries of where they may look.
The justification is two-fold: people have a diminished expectation of privacy in cars, and cars are mobile, so police can act quickly. But the exception does not authorize a search of any car the police feel like searching; it requires probable cause, which the outline defines functionally as using all the available information to establish clear facts or observations that would lead an objective observer to conclude that evidence of a crime will be found in the vehicle.
Once there is probable cause, the scope is generous in one direction and strictly limited in another. In the generous direction, police may search any portion of the car that might harbor the suspected evidence, including closed containers inside the car. So a probable-cause search for drugs reaches the glove box, under the seats, and a closed bag, because each could hold drugs.
The strict limit is that police may not search beyond the bounds of their probable cause. If their probable cause is specific to a large item, say a stolen big-screen television, they may search only places where that item could be, not tiny compartments too small to hold it. And there is a stopping point: once police find and seize the very thing their probable cause was about, they may not keep searching the car, unless some other warrant exception, such as plain view, has independently arisen.
Probable cause is the key that starts the search: police need probable cause that the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime are in the car.
No probable cause, no automobile-exception search.
Scope follows the object: police may search any part of the car, including closed containers, that might harbor the suspected evidence, but not beyond the bounds of their probable cause.
Big object, no tiny spots: if probable cause is about a large item, police may search only places that item could fit.
Found it, stop: once police find and seize the specific thing their probable cause was about, they may not search further unless another exception (like plain view) has arisen.
Police lawfully stop a car and develop probable cause to believe it contains illegal narcotics based on the smell of marijuana and an informant's reliable tip. Acting without a warrant, they search the passenger compartment, the glove box, and a closed backpack on the back seat, finding drugs in the backpack.
The search is valid. Now change the object: suppose the probable cause was instead that the car held a stolen large flat-screen television, and nothing else. Police could search the trunk and back seat where a television could fit, but not the glove box or a small closed container, because those are beyond the bounds of probable cause aimed at a large item. And if they found and seized the television, they could not keep rummaging through the car unless another exception arose.
An option that, for a large object, lets police search small compartments too tiny to hold it, or that limits a closed-container search even though there is probable cause.
Scope follows the object: with probable cause police may open closed containers that might harbor the evidence, but may not search beyond the bounds of their probable cause into spaces too small for the item.An option that lets police keep searching the car after they have found and seized the very item their probable cause was about.
Once the specific item is found and seized, police may not search further unless another exception, such as plain view, has independently arisen.An option that upholds a search by citing the car's mobility or the driver's reduced privacy, with no probable cause that evidence is in the car.
Mobility and reduced privacy explain the exception but do not replace its trigger; probable cause that evidence is in the car is required.An absolute option, such as that police may search a stopped car in any manner they choose, or that a closed container always needs a separate warrant.
The exception requires probable cause but, once present, reaches any part of the car that might harbor the evidence, bounded by the object sought; absolutes overstate it in either direction.the stem puts evidence in a car and has police search it without a warrant.
confirm the trigger: do the facts add up to probable cause that the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime are in the vehicle?
If not, the exception does not apply.
If yes, turn to scope, and let the object of the probable cause draw the boundary.
Police may open closed containers and search anywhere the suspected item might be, but not spaces too small to hold a large item, and not at all once they have found and seized the specific thing they had probable cause for, absent another exception.
Any option that searches beyond the object's possible hiding places, continues after the item is seized, or upholds a search on mobility or reduced privacy without probable cause, is a distractor.
Police lawfully stopped a car and, after smelling a strong odor of marijuana and seeing a partly concealed bag of what looked like narcotics on the floor, developed probable cause to believe the car contained illegal drugs. Without obtaining a warrant, they searched the passenger compartment, the glove box, and a zipped duffel bag on the back seat, finding more drugs inside the duffel. The driver moved to suppress the drugs found in the duffel, arguing the officers needed a warrant to open a closed bag.
Should the drugs found in the duffel be suppressed?
Police had probable cause to believe that a car contained a single stolen large-screen television and nothing else, based on a witness who saw it loaded into the back of the vehicle. After stopping the car, the officers searched not only the cargo area, where the television would fit, but also the glove box and a small zipped pouch in the center console, where they found illegal pills unrelated to the television. The driver moved to suppress the pills, arguing the search of the small spaces exceeded the officers' probable cause.
Should the pills be suppressed?
Acting on probable cause that a car held a stolen laptop, police stopped the vehicle and searched until they found and seized the laptop from under the front seat. Although their probable cause concerned only the laptop, the officers then continued searching, opening the trunk and a closed toolbox inside it, where they found an unrelated unlawful firearm. Nothing in plain view or any other circumstance gave them a fresh basis to search after they had the laptop. The driver moved to suppress the firearm.
Should the firearm be suppressed?
Police pulled over a car for a broken taillight. The driver was calm and cooperative, the officers smelled nothing unusual, saw nothing suspicious, and had no information suggesting the car contained anything illegal. Citing only that cars are mobile and that drivers have less privacy in their vehicles, the officers searched the trunk without a warrant and found contraband. The driver moved to suppress the contraband, arguing the officers had no basis to search.
Should the contraband be suppressed?
Police developed probable cause to believe a car contained a large stolen painting in an oversized frame, taken from a gallery minutes earlier, and had no information about anything else in the car. After stopping the vehicle, the officers searched the back seat and trunk, where such a framed painting could fit, and located it there. They did not open the small locked glove box or any small containers, and they ended the search once they recovered the painting. The driver nonetheless moved to suppress the painting, arguing the warrantless search was unlawful.
Should the painting be suppressed?