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.
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. During the inventory, police found some marijuana in the glove compartment. When Opperman came to the police station to claim his property, he was arrested ...
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."
The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States. [1] [2] The motor vehicle exception allows officers to search a vehicle without a search warrant if they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is in the vehicle. [3]
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 ...
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.
The Border Patrol officers did not have a warrant to stop Almeida-Sanchez, and the United States conceded that the officers did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify the stop or the subsequent vehicle search. [4] In searching behind and under the back seat of the vehicle, the officers found marijuana and arrested Almeida ...
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.