-
517 U.S. 690 Supreme Court June 10, 1996 No. 95-5257
Hurrle asked them if he could search the car and petitioners consented. The men appeared calm, but Ismael was shaking somewhat.
Petitioners also alleged that they had not given their consent to search the interior of the car.
The Magistrate ruled that this consent did not give the officers authority to search inside the panel, however, because under Seventh Circuit precedent the police may not dismantle the car body during an otherwise valid search unless
-
526 U.S. 295 Supreme Court April 5, 1999 No. 98-184
S. 478, 479-480 (1985) ( Ross "held that if police officers have probable cause to search a lawfully stopped vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of any containers found inside that may conceal the object of the search").
* * * We hold that police officers with probable cause to search a car may inspect passengers' belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search.
How then could we say that the right to search a car without a warrant confers greater latitude to search occupants than a search by warrant would permit?
-
508 U.S. 366 Supreme Court June 7, 1993 No. 91-2019
Rather, a protective search permitted without a warrant and on the basis of reasonable suspicion less than probable cause must be strictly "limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to
Under that doctrine, if police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without
the moving of the equipment that was not authorized by a search warrant or by any exception to the warrant requirement.
-
526 U.S. 603 Supreme Court May 24, 1999 No. 98-83
without more.”
It may well be that media ride-alongs further the law enforcement objectives of the police in a general sense, but that is not the same as furthering the purposes of the search.
The Fourth Amendment protects the rights of homeowners from entry without a warrant, but there was a warrant here. The question is whether the invitation to the media exceeded the scope of the search authorized by the warrant.
-
517 U.S. 806 Supreme Court May 15, 1996 No. 95-5841
When the police car executed a U-turn in order to head back toward the truck, the Pathfinder turned suddenly to its right, without signaling, and sped off at an “unreasonable” speed.
S. 218 (1973), in approving a search incident to an arrest for driving without a license, we noted that the arrest was “not a departure from established police department practice.” Id., at 221, n. 1 .
S. 927 (1995), entry into a home without a warrant, see Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U. S. 740 (1984), or physical penetration of the body, see Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753 (1985).
-
500 U.S. 565 Supreme Court June 3, 1991 No. 89-1690
That dichotomy dictates that if there is probable cause to search a car, then the entire car—including any closed container found therein—may be searched without a warrant, but if there is probable cause only as to a container in the
car, the container may be held but not searched until a warrant is obtained.
In other words, the police may search without a warrant if their search is supported by probable cause.
-
496 U.S. 128 Supreme Court June 4, 1990 No. 88-7164
earlier cases was fairly summarized in these three paragraphs from Justice Stewart’s opinion: “It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.
And an object that comes into view during a search incident to arrest that is appropriately limited in scope under existing law may be seized without a warrant. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. [752,] 762-763 [(1969)].
The record disclosed that the police had known for some time of the probable role of the car in the crime, and there were no ‘exigent circumstances’ to justify a warrantless search.
-
525 U.S. 83 Supreme Court February 23, 1999 No. 97-1147
He then notified headquarters, which began preparing affidavits for a search warrant while he returned to the apartment building. When two men left the building in a previously identified Cadillac, the police stopped the car.
A search of the apartment pursu- ' ant to a warrant revealed cocaine residue on the kitchen table and plastic baggies similar to those found in the Cadillac.
We therefore hold that any search which may have occurred did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights.
-
7 F.3d 1309 Seventh Circuit October 21, 1993 No. 92-2149
support the search warrant.
Markling finally argues that the district court should have suppressed the evidence Gehl found when he searched Mark-ling’s car without a warrant.
Under the automobile exception, a police officer may search a car without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe the car contains contraband or evidence of a crime. See, e.g., Carroll v.
-
494 U.S. 325 Supreme Court March 5, 1990 No. 88-1369
"Traditionally, the sanctity of a person's home his castle requires that the police may not invade it without a warrant except under the most exigent of circumstances.
Respondent argues that a protective sweep may not be undertaken without a warrant unless the exigencies of the situation render such warrantless search objectively reasonable.
Under this test, a search of the house or office is generally not reasonable without a warrant issued on probable cause.
-
519 U.S. 408 Supreme Court February 19, 1997 No. 95-1268
There the police had obtained a search warrant for contraband thought to be located in a residence, but when they arrived to execute the warrant they found Summers coming down the front steps.
In holding as it did, the Court said: "Although no special danger to the police is suggested by the evidence in this record, the execution of a warrant to search for narcotics is the kind of transaction that may give rise to sudden
S. 1 (1968)if a police officer conducting a traffic stop has an articulable suspicion of possible danger, the officer may order passengers to exit the vehicle as a defensive tactic without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment.
-
526 U.S. 559 Supreme Court May 17, 1999 No. 98-223
During a subsequent inventory search, the police found two pieces of crack cocaine in the ashtray.
The Florida Supreme Court recognized that under Carroll, the police could search respondent’s car, without obtaining a warrant, if they had probable cause to believe that it contained contraband.
S. 573, 587 (1980); see also id., at 586-587 (“It is also well settled that objects such as weapons or contraband found in a public place may be seized by the police without a warrant”).
-
506 U.S. 56 Supreme Court December 8, 1992 No. 91-6516
However, the plurality was of the view that, because under the circumstances of the case there was probable cause to seize the car as an instrumentality of the crime, Fourth Amendment precedent permitted the seizure without a warrant
The police search in order to seize, and it is the search *68 and ensuing seizure that the Fourth Amendment by its reference to ‘searches and seizures’ seeks to regulate.
Seizure means one thing when it is the outcome of a search; it may mean something else when it stands apart from a search or any other investigative activity.
-
514 U.S. 1 Supreme Court March 1, 1995 No. 93-1660
Officers proceeded to search his car and discovered a bag of marijuana under the passenger’s seat. The State charged respondent with possession of marijuana.
was responsible for the continued presence of the quashed warrant in the police records
In Leon , we applied these principles to the context of a police search in which the officers had acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant, issued by a neutral and detached Magistrate, that later was determined
-
497 U.S. 177 Supreme Court June 21, 1990 No. 88-2018
The police, without a warrant and despite the absence of an exigency, entered Rodriguez's home to arrest him.
We have further held that "a search or seizure carried out on a suspect's premises without a warrant is per se unreasonable, unless the police can show that it falls within one of a carefully defined set of exceptions."
police officer executing a warrant, or the police officer conducting a search or seizure under one of the exceptions to the *196 warrant requirementis not that they always be correct, but that they always be reasonable."
-
500 U.S. 248 Supreme Court May 23, 1991 No. 90-622
We think that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search respondents' car included consent to search containers within that car which might bear drugs.
Respondents argue, and the Florida trial court agreed, that if the police wish to search closed containers within a car they must separately request permission to search each container.
If anything, a rule that permits the police to construe a consent to search more broadly than it may have been intended would discourage individuals from consenting to searches of their cars.
-
527 U.S. 465 Supreme Court June 21, 1999 No. 98-1062
also a separate finding of exigency precluding the police from obtaining a warrant.
it significantly difficult for the police to obtain a search warrant.
. permits police to search the vehicle without more."
-
495 U.S. 91 Supreme Court April 18, 1990 No. 88-1916
Without seeking permission and with weapons drawn, the police entered the upper unit and found respondent hiding in a closet. Less than an hour after his arrest, respondent made an inculpatory statement at police headquarters.
S. 573 (1980), that a suspect should not be arrested in his house without an arrest warrant, even though there is probable cause to arrest him.
In Jones , the defendant was arrested in a friend’s apartment during the execution of a search warrant and sought to challenge the warrant as not supported by probable cause.
-
129 Wash. 2d 61 Washington Supreme Court May 9, 1996 No. 62473-9
*75 The Court of Appeals writes that the police had the right to search the truck without a warrant after its seizure for purposes of RCW 69.50.505, stating: [The McFadden court] then concluded that since the government’s right
Some federal courts have held that where police have probable cause to believe a car is subject to forfeiture, or have validly seized a car for forfeiture, the police may search the car without a warrant.
In justifying its holding, the Court relied on the Rabinowitz test: "It is no answer to say that the police could have obtained a search warrant, for '[t]he relevant test is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant,
-
917 P.2d 563 Washington Supreme Court May 9, 1996 No. 62473-9
The Court of Appeals writes that the police had the right to search the truck without a warrant after its seizure for purposes of RCW 69.50.505, stating: [The McFadden court] then concluded that since the government's right to seize
Some federal courts have held that where police have probable cause to believe a car is subject to forfeiture, or have validly seized a car for forfeiture, the police may search the car without a warrant.
In justifying its holding, the Court relied on the Rabinowitz test: "It is no answer to say that the police could have obtained a search warrant, for `[t]he relevant test is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant,
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.