How can the automobile exception carved out in Carroll be reconciled with other, more restrictive cases governing warrantless searches and seizures?
Thank you for selecting BrainMass to assist you with your assignment. We trust that the information you receive will be a benefit to you in completing your assignment.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The legality of searches of vehicles without a warrant was established in what is now known as the "Carroll Doctrine." Interestingly enough, the CARROLL v U.S. 267 US 132 case was based on the possession of bootlegged liquor during the time that Prohibition was in effect. The Supreme Court noted "for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, there is a constitutional difference between houses and cars" (Lemons, 2006). Therefore, it is legal in specific circumstances to cause a warrantless search. The rationale behind this doctrine are two: (1) Vehicles can be moved at any moment, so that by the time a warrant is granted the vehicle could be in an entirely different jurisdiction and the warrant would not be valid; (Fernandez v. United States, 321 F.2d 283, 286-287) (9th Cir. 1963) and (2) because of this rigorous ...
Restrictive cases governing warrantless searches and seizures are clearly discussed.