motor vehicle exception

The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States.{{cite journal|last1=Regini|first1=Lisa A.|title=The Motor Vehicle Exception|journal=FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin|date=1999|volume=68|issue=7|page=26|url=https://leb.fbi.gov/1999-pdfs/leb-july-1999|access-date=11 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161216091100/https://leb.fbi.gov/1999-pdfs/leb-july-1999|archive-date=16 December 2016|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}} 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.Hendrie, E. (August 2005). "[https://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2005/august2005/august05leb.htm#page22 The Motor Vehicle Exception]." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 74, Retrieved August 14, 2006 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229093414/https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2005/august2005/august05leb.htm#page22 |date=December 29, 2016}} The exception is based on the idea that there is a lower expectation of privacy in motor vehicles because of the regulations under which they operate. Also, the ease of mobility creates an inherent exigency to prevent the removal of evidence and contraband.

In Pennsylvania v. Labron{{cite web|title=Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 US 938, 116 S. Ct. 2485, 135 L. Ed. 2d 1031 (1996)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10619275420083631177|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} the US Supreme Court stated, "If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to search the vehicle without more."

The scope of the search is limited to only the area that the officers have probable cause to search. The area can encompass the entire vehicle, including the trunk. The motor vehicle exception, in addition to allowing officers to search the vehicle, allows officers to search any containers found inside the vehicle that could contain the evidence or contraband for which they are searching (United States v. Ross). The objects searched do not need to belong to the owner of the vehicle. In Wyoming v. Houghton,{{cite web|title=Wyoming v. Houghton 526 US 295, 119 S. Ct. 1297, 143 L. Ed. 2d 408|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10549130397982197067|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} the US Supreme Court ruled that the ownership of objects searched in the vehicle is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the search.

Some states' constitutions require officers to show there was not enough time to obtain a warrant. Except for states with that requirement, officers are not required to obtain a warrant even if it may be possible to do so.

In United States v. Ludwig, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a search warrant is not required even if there is little or no risk of the vehicle being driven off. The court stated, "If police have probable cause to search a car, they need not get a search warrant first even if they have time and opportunity." In United States v. Johns, the US Supreme Court upheld a search of a vehicle that had been seized and was in police custody for three days prior to the search: "A vehicle lawfully in police custody may be searched on the basis of probable cause to believe it contains contraband, and there is no requirement of exigent circumstances to justify such a warrantless search."

The US Supreme Court in California v. Carney 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. In United States v. Johns,{{cite web|title=United States v. Johns, 469 US 478, 105 S. Ct. 881, 83 L. Ed. 2d 890 (1985)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7897848082806652201|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} the motor vehicle exception was applied to trucks. In United States v. Forrest, it was applied to trailers pulled by trucks and to boats. In United States v. Hill, it was applied to house boats.{{cite web|title=United States v. Forrest, 620 F.2d 446, 457 (5th Cir. 1980).|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11938651351243903259|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} In United States v. Nigro{{cite web|title=United States v. Nigro, 727 F.2d 100, 103 (6th Cir. 1984) (en banc)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10853044090885506466|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} and United States v. Montgomery,{{cite web|title=United States v. Montgomery, 620 F.2d 753 (10th Cir. 1980)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10572482018283614230|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} the motor vehicle exception was found to apply to airplanes.

The motor vehicle exception has gone through five phases as marked by Supreme Court cases:1-18 Search and Seizure § 18.3. Copyright 2008, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group.

• A. Early cases; Carroll v. United States{{cite web|title=Carroll v. United States, 267 US 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16659390033135638076|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} to United States v. Di Re{{cite web|title=United States v. Di Re, 332 US 581, 68 S. Ct. 222, 92 L. Ed. 210, 267 US 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10284008714648396927|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} and the requirement of exigency

::See also: Cooper v. California

• B. Chambers v. Maroney{{cite web|title=Chambers v. Maroney 399 US 42, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1970)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2193054308612397767|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} and the relaxing of exigency

::See also: Preston v United States,{{cite web|title=Preston v. United States, 376 US 364, 84 S. Ct. 881, 11 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1964)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8816660045832037767|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} Dyke v Taylor Implement Mfg. Co.;{{cite web|title=Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co. 391 US 216, 88 S. Ct. 1472, 20 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1968)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5678125605697027590|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} Coolidge v. New Hampshire,{{cite web|title=Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13960360378186505490|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} Almeida-Sanchez v. United States,{{cite web|title=Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 US 266, 93 S. Ct. 2535, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596 (1973)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} Cardwell v. Lewis,{{cite web|title=Cardwell v. Lewis 417 US 583, 94 S. Ct. 2464, 41 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1974)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1968897270229595819|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} Texas v. White{{cite web|title=Texas v. White, 423 US 67, 96 S. Ct. 304, 46 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1975)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1493564502897179932|website=Google Scholar|publisher=Google|access-date=11 September 2017}}

• C. Automobile exception first applied to containers in Arkansas v. Sanders{{cite web|title=Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 US 753, 99 S. Ct. 2586, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1979)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2198646416645971542|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}}

::See also: United States v. Chadwick,{{cite web|title=United States v. Chadwick, 433 US 1, 97 S. Ct. 2476, 53 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1977)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7941794401088685966|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} Colorado v. Bannister{{cite web|title=Colorado v. Bannister, 449 US 1, 101 S. Ct. 42, 66 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1980)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1575791182179690328|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}}

• D. Probable cause and containers -- United States v. Ross{{cite web|title=United States v. Ross, 456 US 798, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16486997063826411961|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}}

::See also: California v. Acevedo,{{cite web|title=California v. Acevedo, 500 US 565, 111 S. Ct. 1982, 114 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1991)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16692558659390304073|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} Wyoming v. Houghton{{cite web|title=Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 US 295, 119 S. Ct. 1297, 143 L. Ed. 2d 408 (1999)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10549130397982197067|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}}

• E. The clearer movement toward automobile—exigency

::See also: Michigan v. Thomas,{{cite web|title=Michigan v. Thomas 458 US 259, 102 S. Ct. 3079, 73 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1982)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17964010885567265292|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} United States v. Johns,{{cite web|title=United States v. Johns, 469 US 478, 105 S. Ct. 881, 83 L. Ed. 2d 890 (1985)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7897848082806652201|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} California v. Carney,{{cite web|title=California v. Carney, 471 US 386, 105 S. Ct. 2066, 85 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1985)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15820223925611411971|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}} Maryland v. Dyson{{cite web|title=Maryland v. Dyson, 527 US 465, 119 S. Ct. 2013, 144 L. Ed. 2d 442 (1999)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16803724896409058731|website=Google Scholar|access-date=11 September 2017}}

The vehicle exception does not include vehicles parked within private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, which includes a home and its surrounding curtilage, defined by the Fourth Amendment, as determined in Collins v. Virginia (2018). The Supreme Court also ruled in the 2017 case Byrd v. United States that the motor vehicle exception also includes those driving rental vehicles even if the driver is not listed on the rental agreement.

• Exclusionary rule
• Terry stop

{{Criminal procedure}}

*

Category:Vehicle law