Automobile+Searches

= __**AUTOMOBILE SEARCHES **__ =

toc = = = United States v Ross =


 * Facts: **
 * -Ross was accused of selling drugs from his car in the District of Columbia. **
 * -They searched his car, opened the trunk, and found a brown paper bag filled with drugs. **
 * -They later found a zippered pouch with $3200 in cash. **
 * -The officers acted without a warrant in each search. **


 * Issue: **
 * The issue that is being challenged is whether or not it was against the fourth amendment because the police searched his car without a warrant. **


 * Court's Decision: **
 * The court’s decision was that the situation was an exception the the fourth amendment because of the automobile exception and they said it was acceptable because of probable cause. **

=** Impacts: **= =** This case changed the automobile exception and made more clear what the rules were. The automobile exception applies to all motor vehicles including motor homes, boats, trucks, cars, motorcycles, etc. Abandoned cars can be search for the only for determining ownership. **=

= Chambers v Maroney =


 * Facts: **
 * -The facts of the case was that after a local gas station robbery a car that matched the description of a vehicle shown leaving the gas station was stopped. **
 * - The description was given by the store clerk and two teenagers that were outside of the gas station. **
 * -Inside of the car the police officer saw two men wearing clothes that fitted the description of what the robbers supposedly were wearing. **
 * -After this the car along with the men were taken back to the police station where that car was searched and the men arrested. **
 * -In the search they found two guns, items from the robbery and other pieces of evidence. **


 * Issue: **
 * The issue is if it was acceptable for the law enforcement officers to search the car back at the police station without a warrant. **


 * Court's Decision: **
 * The court’s decision was that the officers were completely justified in the search of the car. That it was acceptable considering the circumstances to search the car without a warrant. The conviction of the two men was affirmed. **


 * Impacts: **
 * It kept things that same since this was an exception due to the amount of probable cause. If there was not so much probable cause the the evidence found in the search would most likely not have been usable in court. **

= Maryland v Pringle =


 * Facts: **
 * - A police officer stopped a car from speeding at around 3:16 A.M. **
 * - He searched the car and seized $763 from the glove compartment and cocaine from behind the back-seat armrest **
 * - All three occupants of the car were arrested after denying ownership of the money and drugs **
 * - Pringle, the front-seat passenger, was sentenced to 10 years prison without parole for possession of and intention to distribute the cocaine **
 * - The court reversed the conviction due to the finding of cocaine in the back when Pringle was in the front passenger seat while the owner was driving. This is insufficient evidence to establish a probable cause for arrest for possession of drugs. **


 * Issue: **
 * The issue is if it was okay for the police officer to blame Pringle for being the owner of the drugs that were hidden in the back seat, since he wasn’t even the owner of the car. **


 * Court’s Decision: **
 * The Court ruled that because the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle, the arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that "a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe that Pringle committed the crime of possession of cocaine." The court then concluded that this was not sufficient enough to have probable cause for. They reversed the conviction. **


 * Impacts: **
 * The court’s decision impacted this case in a big way because first before it went to court, the police would have thought that the man would be put in prison since he signed a written confession. But because the court decided that since he was in the front and the drugs were in the back and he was not the owner of the car, they decided to reverse the conviction since it was not a probable cause to arrest him. **

= Illinois v Caballes =
 * Facts: **
 * - Caballes was stopped by a state trooper for speeding. **
 * - Another officer was called during his stop and arrived at the situation with a drug-sniffing dog. **
 * - As Caballes was waiting for the other officer to write his traffic violation, the dog drew attention to the trunk of his car, alerting the officers that there were drugs in there. **
 * - The officers found a large amount of marijuana. **
 * - Caballes claimed that the police officers did not have a probable cause to search his car. **
 * - The judge denied the motion to suppress because the dog did not prolong the stop and that it’s alert created a probable cause to search it. **
 * - The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, claiming that the use of a drug-sniffing dog enlarged the nature of a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation without any specific, articulate facts justifying the change in scope of the stop. **


 * Issue: **
 * The issue is if the use of a drug-sniffing dog during the course of a routine traffic stop where the stop is not prolonged by the use of the dog and where police have no prior cause to begin a search violates the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. **


 * Court's Decision: **
 * Fourth Amendment was not violated. The Constitution did not require police to have reasonable suspicion to use a drug-detection dog on a car during a legal traffic stop. No actual privacy was at risk because the dog only alerted to an illegal drug. **


 * Impacts: **
 * The impacts this had were that since Caballes felt as if his fourth amendment rights were violated, the court agreed. The police did not have the right to search the car with the drug-detection dog without specific and articulable facts to support its use. **