Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982), was a search and seizure case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.The high court was asked to decide if a legal warrantless search of an automobile allows closed containers found in the vehicle (specifically, in the trunk) to be searched as well.
Opperman's car was found illegally parked on a street in Vermillion, South Dakota, in the early morning hours of December 10, 1973. Acting pursuant to police procedures, Opperman's car was impounded. Because sundry items were scattered about in the passenger cabin, the police decided to inventory the contents of the car.
Sanders (1979) which had previously held that, if probable cause existed to search an automobile, the police may perform a warrantless search of the automobile and the containers within it, but if the police only had probable cause to search a container in the automobile, the police first had to obtain a warrant before searching the container.
Carney [6] found the motor vehicle exception to apply to a motor home. The court, however, made a distinction between readily-mobile motor homes and parked mobile homes. A number of factors, including the home being elevated on blocks, the vehicle being licensed, and its connection to utilities determine if the motor vehicle exception applies.
Almeida-Sanchez moved to suppress the marijuana because the officers found it through an unconstitutional search, violating the Fourth Amendment. The United States argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(a)(3) authorizes warrantless searches of vehicles within a reasonable distance of the land border.
Warrantless searches are searches and seizures conducted without court-issued search warrants.. In the United States, warrantless searches are restricted under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, which states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not ...
Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule (from Chimel v.California), is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.
The Court noted that Congress early observed the need for a search warrant in non-border search situations, [2] and Congress always recognized "a necessary difference" between searches of buildings and vehicles "for contraband goods, where it is not practical to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought."