Searches of Vehicles (& Persons/Containers)

What is the general rule for warrantless vehicle searches?

Police may make an immediate, warrantless search of a vehicle if:
1⃣ The vehicle is mobile (readily capable of movement), and
2⃣ There is probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.

Key limits:

• Applies mainly to vehicles in public places (not parked within the curtilage of a home).

• Justified by the mobility of vehicles and the lower expectation of privacy in automobiles.

Takeaway: If officers have PC, they can search the entire vehicle and any containers within that may hold the object of the search — no warrant required.

Why does the automobile exception exist?

Twofold rationale:
1⃣ Mobility: Cars can quickly drive away, making it impractical to obtain a warrant in time.
2⃣ Regulation & Privacy: Vehicles are heavily regulated, lowering the expectation of privacy compared to homes.

Professor’s note: “Cars are treated differently because they move — and because you already expect the government to have a say in how you use them.”

Takeaway: The exception is rooted in practical necessity and reduced privacy, not diminished Fourth Amendment protection overall.

Once officers have probable cause, what can they search in a vehicle?

They can search any part of the car — including containers, the trunk, and compartments — that could hold the object of the search.

• Example: If searching for drugs, officers can open small containers and bags.

• If searching for a stolen TV, they cannot open tiny boxes.

Takeaway: The object sought defines the scope — same logic as the scope of premises searches.

Can police search passengers or their belongings during a vehicle search?

• If officers have PC that the vehicle contains contraband, they can search containers belonging to any occupant if the container could hide the object of the search.

• However, personal searches of passengers require individual probable cause or reasonable suspicion (see Ybarra).

Takeaway: The right to search the vehicle extends to containers, not automatically to people inside it.

When can officers search a vehicle incident to arrest of its occupant?

Under Arizona v. Gant (2009), officers may search the passenger compartment if:
1⃣ The arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle at the time of the search, or
2⃣ Officers have reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the offense of arrest.

Takeaway: Gant narrows vehicle SITAs — no automatic full search after an arrest. Context determines legality.

What are inventory searches, and when are they valid?

• Occur when police lawfully impound a vehicle (after arrest, accident, or towing).

• Officers may inventory its contents to:
  1⃣ Protect owner’s property,
  2⃣ Protect police from false claims, and
  3⃣ Protect police from danger.

Rule: The search must follow standardized procedures — not serve as a pretext for investigation.

Takeaway: Administrative, not investigatory. Reasonableness depends on policy compliance, not suspicion.

What did Michigan v. Summers (1981) and Bailey v. U.S. (2013) establish?

• Summers: A valid warrant carries implicit authority to detain occupants during execution — for safety, flight prevention, and efficiency.

• Bailey: That authority does not extend beyond the immediate premises.

Takeaway: Police may detain but not pursue people offsite; detention must occur on or immediately near the search location.

What limits exist on the use of force during lawful detention?

• Officers may use reasonable force (e.g., handcuffs) if justified by the nature of the investigation — especially if the warrant involves weapons or violent suspects.

• Extended handcuffing (2–3 hours) may still be reasonable under the circumstances.

Takeaway: Reasonableness is fact-specific, not bright-line — justified by safety and control.

What are the two key limits on scope during any search (vehicle or home)?

1⃣ Search only where items described in the warrant could be located.
2⃣ Once all listed items are found, the search must stop.

Strategy tip: Listing small or common items in a warrant (e.g., papers, receipts) broadens lawful search range.

How does the Plain View Doctrine apply to vehicle or premises searches?

• If officers are lawfully present and evidence’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent, they can seize it even if not listed in the warrant.

• Horton removed the “inadvertence” requirement — officer intent doesn’t matter.

Takeaway: Plain view = lawful presence + immediate probable cause + lawful access.

How do computer searches differ from traditional physical searches?

• Original view: Computers = file cabinets — officers could examine all contents and seize relevant evidence.

• Modern view: Courts reject this — computers hold vast personal data, risking general warrants.

• Courts now require search protocols, file-type limits, or tech teams to protect privacy.

Rule 41 note: The 14-day warrant limit applies to seizure, not the extended review of data.

Takeaway: Courts are evolving toward balancing digital privacy with law enforcement access — the law is in flux.