-
399 U.S. 42 Supreme Court October 12, 1970 No. 830
searched without a warrant.
S. 58 (1967), 7 *50 the Court read Preston as dealing primarily with a search incident to arrest and cited that case for the proposition that the mobility of a car may make the search of a car without a warrant reasonable “although
Where this is true, as in Carroll and the case before us now, if an effective search is to be made at any time, either the search must be made immediately without a warrant or the car itself must be seized and held without a warrant
-
386 U.S. 58 Supreme Court February 20, 1967 No. 103
The conviction rested in part on the introduction in evidence of a small piece of a brown paper sack seized by police without a warrant from the glove compartment of an automobile which police, upon petitioner’s arrest, had impounded
are constantly movable may make the search of a car without a warrant a reasonable one although the result might be the opposite in a search of a home, a store, or other fixed piece of property. 376 U.
It is rio 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, but whether the search was reasonable.” United States v.
-
413 U.S. 433 Supreme Court June 21, 1973 No. 72-586
movable may make the search of a car without a warrant a reasonable one although the result might be the opposite in a search of a home, a store, or other fixed piece of property. 376 U.
The warrant was validly issued and the police were authorized to search the car.
could constitutionally seize them without a warrant
-
444 U.S. 85 Supreme Court January 21, 1980 No. 78-5937
There the Government investigator was proceeding without a search warrant, and here the police possessed a warrant authorizing the search of the Aurora Tap Tavern.
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?” Ibid. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S., at 208, quoting Brinegar v.
The statute purports instead to authorize the police in some circumstances to make searches and seizures without probable cause and without search warrants.
-
460 U.S. 730 Supreme Court April 19, 1983 No. 81-419
S. 573, 587 (1980), the well-settled rule that “objects such as weapons or contraband found in a public place may be seized by the police without a warrant.
The Court held that these facts supplied the officer with “probable cause,” id., at 4 , and therefore, that he could seize the incriminating items from the car without a warrant.
Thus, police may perceive an object while executing a search warrant, or they may come across an item while acting pursuant to some exception to the Warrant Clause, e. g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (1967); Terry v.
-
462 U.S. 213 Supreme Court June 8, 1983 No. 81-430
Indeed, applying the exclusionary rule to warrant searches may well reduce incentives for police to utilize the preferred warrant procedure when a warrantless search may be permissible under one of the established exceptions to the
Under Ross , the car search may have been valid if the officers had probable cause after the Gates arrived.
probable cause and without a valid warrant.
-
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?
-
439 U.S. 128 Supreme Court January 15, 1979 No. 77-5781
A police officer on a routine patrol received a radio call notifying him of a robbery of a clothing store in Bourbonnais, Ill., and describing the getaway car.
In the majority of cases, I would imagine that the police plant a bug with the expectation that it may well produce leads to a large number of crimes.
The search of the apartment in Jones was pursuant to a search warrant naming Jones and another woman as occupants of the apartment.
-
442 U.S. 753 Supreme Court June 20, 1979 No. 77-1497
S. 752 (1969), he may search objects within the occupants’ immediate control, with or without probable cause.
If there is probable cause to search the automobile itself, then under Carroll and Chambers the entire interior area of the automobile may be searched, with or without a warrant.
In my view, it would be better to adopt a clear-cut rule to the effect that a warrant should not be required to seize and search any personal property found in an automobile that may in turn be seized and searched without a warrant
-
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.
-
380 U.S. 102 Supreme Court March 1, 1965 No. 28
S. 257, 270 , this Court, strongly supporting the preference to be accorded searches under a warrant, indicated that in a doubtful or marginal case a search under a warrant may be sustainable where without one it would fall.
available to the police made a finding of probable cause, the search under the warrant would have been sustained.
S. 364 : “Unquestionably, when a person is lawfully arrested, the police have the right, without a search warrant, to make a contemporaneous search of the person of the accused for weapons or for the fruits of or implements used to
-
463 U.S. 1032 Supreme Court July 6, 1983 No. 82-256
car and the police knew of its existence only because of the tip.
While under some circumstances the police may search a car without a warrant, see, e. g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U.
A Terry search, "unlike a search without a warrant incident to a lawful arrest, is not justified by any need to prevent the disappearance or destruction of evidence of crime. . . .
-
412 U.S. 218 Supreme Court May 29, 1973 No. 71-732
And in those cases where there is probable cause to arrest or search, but where the police lack a warrant, a consent search may still be valuable.
If the search is conducted and proves fruitless, that in itself may convince the police that an arrest with its possible stigma and embarrassment is unnecessary, or that a far more extensive search pursuant to a warrant is not justified
The actual conduct of the search may be precisely the same as if the police had obtained a warrant.
-
332 U.S. 581 Supreme Court January 19, 1948 No. 61
The claim is that officers have the right, without a warrant, to search any car which they have reasonable cause to believe carries contraband, and incidentally may search any occupant of such car when the contraband sought is of a
nonetheless are subject to search without warrant in enforcement of all federal statutes.
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?
-
407 U.S. 143 Supreme Court June 12, 1972 No. 70-283
On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. *146 See id., at 23 .
Connolly’s investigation proved the tip incorrect. 2 Thus, while the Court’s decisions indicate that this informant’s unverified tip may have been insufficient for a narcotics arrest or search warrant, see, ,e. g., Spinelli v.
Some tips, completely lacking in indicia of reliability, would either warrant no police response or require further investigation before a forcible stop of a suspect would be authorized.
-
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).
-
415 U.S. 164 Supreme Court February 20, 1974 No. 72-1355
There was no emergency, nor danger to any police officer or other persons which required that the search proceed without awaiting the time at which a search warrant could be applied for.
without any effort by the police to secure a valid search warrant.
This was not the search without a warrant, but rather searches under warrants confined by explicit restrictions: "I admit that special writs of assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath." 2 J.
-
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.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.