Carroll v. United States
| Carroll v. United States | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 14, 1924 Decided March 2, 1925 |
|
| Full case name | George Carroll, John Kiro v. United States |
| Citations | 267 U.S. 132 (more)
45 S. Ct. 280; 69 L.Ed. 543; 39 A. L. R. 790
|
| Holding | |
| The warrantless search of a car does not violate the Constitution. The mobility of the automobile makes it impracticable to get a search warrant. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Taft, joined by Holmes, Van Devanter, Brandeis, Butler, Sanford |
| Concurrence | McKenna |
| Dissent | McReynolds, joined by Sutherland |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV, National Prohibition Act | |
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrantless search of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. The case has also been used to increase the scope of warrantless searches.
Federal prohibition officers arranged an undercover purchase of liquor from George Carroll, an illicit dealer under investigation, but the transaction was not completed. They later saw Carroll and one Kiro driving on the highway from Detroit to Grand Rapids, Michigan, which they regularly patrolled. They pursued, pulled them over, and searched the car, finding illegal liquor behind the rear seat.
The National Prohibition Act provided that officers could make warrantless searches of vehicles, boats, or airplanes when they had reason to believe illegal liquor was being transported and that law enforced the Eighteenth Amendment.
The Court noted that Congress early observed the need for a search warrant in border search situations, 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 warrantless search under these circumstances was thus valid.
The Court held, however, that
The Court added that where the securing of a warrant is reasonably practicable, it must be used.
This became known as the Carroll doctrine: a vehicle could be searched without a search warrant if there was probable cause to believe that evidence is present in the vehicle, coupled with exigent circumstances to believe that the vehicle could be removed from the area before a warrant could be obtained.
In 1927, the Florida Legislature enacted the Carroll decision into statute law in Florida, and the statute remains in effect.
...
Wikipedia