Automobile Exception

If police searched your vehicle during a traffic stop and located evidence of a crime, you might wonder whether this was a legal search and if law enforcement officers can use this evidence against you. The legality of this type of search may depend on whether the automobile exception applies. An experienced attorney can review your case, explain whether this exception for searches applies to your case, and which defenses we may be able to raise on your behalf. Call Spring & Spring for a confidential case review. 

The Requirement of a Warrant in Most Cases

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This language signifies that people should not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. Additionally, law enforcement officers are generally required to obtain a search warrant before they are allowed to search a person or seize evidence to use against them. To obtain a search warrant, they must have probable cause. 

The automobile exception works outside the confines of the Fourth Amendment, often allowing law enforcement officers to search motor vehicles and seize evidence to use against a vehicle occupant in a criminal trial.

What Is the Automobile Exception?

The Federal and Massachusetts Constitutions typically prohibit police officers from searching private locations without first obtaining a warrant. The warrant requirement, however, does not generally apply to automobiles. The United States Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have ruled that when the police have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a car that is in a public place, they may search the car without a warrant. These warrantless searches are justified for two reasons. First, motor vehicles are inherently mobile. Therefore, if the police were forced to wait for a warrant to search, there would be a substantial risk that the evidence or contraband would be moved. Second, we all have a reduced expectation of privacy in the items we keep in our cars (as opposed to items we keep in our homes or offices, for example) because our cars are subject to considerable governmental regulations.

When Does the Motor Vehicle Exception Apply?

It is crucial that you understand when this exception to warranted searches applies. Here is what you need to know about this important issue:

• The automobile exception applies only to vehicles that are either stopped by the police in transit or are parked in a public location (such as on a road or in a parking lot accessible to the public).
• Although it seems counterintuitive, it is not required that a search pursuant to the automobile exception occur immediately. Courts have ruled the police may take custody of a car and search it after it has been transported to the station (where the risk of flight has seemingly been eliminated).
• While a warrant is not required, a police officer still needs probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of a crime will be discovered inside the vehicle. Until recently in Massachusetts, possession of any amount of marijuana was a crime. Therefore, anytime police officers smelled marijuana smoke during a traffic stop, they were permitted to search the car for evidence of the crime (possession of marijuana). The marijuana laws in Massachusetts changed a few years ago and it is no longer a crime to possess less than an ounce of marijuana (although it is still a civil violation). Therefore, the smell of marijuana smoke does not, by itself, give the cops the right to search a car.

When searches of automobiles yield evidence that could be used against you at trial, you need an experienced lawyer who can investigate whether the legality of the search can be challenged.

Necessary Factors to Search a Vehicle

For police officers to conduct a legal search of a vehicle, the following must be true:

• Police have probable cause: Police only need reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop, which is a lower standard than probable cause, which is necessary to conduct a search. Reasonable suspicion requires a law enforcement officer to have specific, articulable facts suggesting criminal activity is afoot. The officer must have more than a hunch and must be able to point to observable facts to support their belief. In contrast, probable cause requires a police officer to have a reasonable belief that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. Probable cause is required to complete an arrest, search, or obtain a warrant. 
• The vehicle is not on curtilage: One of the tenets of the American justice system is that we should all feel free in our house and home. Curtilage is the area directly around the property. It serves as an extension of the home. If the vehicle is on the curtilage of the property, police may not be able to search it without first obtaining a warrant because the expectation of privacy is greater here. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the automobile exception does not apply when the vehicle is on the curtilage of a home.
• The vehicle is apparently mobile: The automobile exception exists because of the inherently mobile nature of the vehicle. If the vehicle is not apparently mobile, the exception might not apply. Courts consider various factors when determining the mobile nature of the vehicle, including: the vehicle occupants’ arrest status, whether a delayed search can occur at a different location, such as at a station house, and whether the vehicle is parked and unoccupied. Courts have upheld warrantless searches of vehicles when occupants were arrested, vehicles were searched after a delay in a different location, and when the vehicle was parked and unoccupied. Courts have also ruled that the vehicle does not need to be moving at the time for this exception to apply, as they have ruled searches constitutional when they occurred in parked motor homes.

What Constitutes Probable Cause in Vehicle Searches? 

Probable cause is the legal standard a law enforcement officer must have before they can legally conduct a search of a vehicle. To meet this requirement, the law enforcement officer must have a reasonable belief based on particular facts and circumstances that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. This belief must be based on the totality of the circumstances and grounded in facts, observations, or information rather than a law enforcement officer’s hunch or subjective opinion.

Courts use an objective standard when determining whether a law enforcement officer had probable cause. In other words, would another person in the officer’s position have reached the same conclusion?

Various factors and evidence can support probable cause arguments, including:

• Police observed criminal activity: Sometimes, law enforcement may directly observe criminal activity. For example, the officer might observe a person engaging in a drug deal and then entering the vehicle, which could justify the stop and search of the vehicle. 
• Police have reliable information: Police could have received credible information or a tip from a reliable source regarding illegal items or evidence of a crime in a particular vehicle. This can establish probable cause, but the source’s reliability and the specifics regarding the alleged evidence are considered if there is a challenge to this information. 
• Police smell contraband: If law enforcement smells contraband or it is in plain sight, the officer may be allowed to conduct a search pursuant to the automobile exception. 

Delayed Searches Under the Automobile Exception

You might wonder whether police are permitted to conduct a delayed search. For example, police may have arrested you, taken your vehicle to impound, and then searched it. It would stand to reason that such searches could be considered outside the scope of the automobile exception since the vehicle is no longer in the suspect’s possession and there is not an emergency situation. 

However, courts have consistently held delayed searches to be constitutional if probable cause persists after the vehicle was impounded and the search is reasonable. However, if the vehicle is in the possession of law enforcement, courts might consider whether they should have obtained a warrant. When determining whether a delayed search is constitutional, courts consider the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and the threat to public safety.

Other Permitted Warrantless Searches

The rule is that law enforcement must generally have a search warrant before conducting a search. However, there are exceptions. In addition to the automobile exception, other exceptions include:

• Plain view doctrine: If law enforcement sees evidence of a crime in plain view, they can conduct a warrantless search if this evidence establishes probable cause. For example, a law enforcement officer might see contraband or drug activity from outside the vehicle that provides probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle. 
• Exigency: Police officers can sometimes circumvent the requirement of obtaining a warrant by showing that an exigent circumstance prevented them from obtaining a warrant. For example, they may point to an emergency situation where it is not practical to obtain a warrant or argue that a crime was currently in progress, so there was no opportunity to apply for a warrant.
• Vehicle inventory searches: Police may conduct an inventory search of the vehicle to write down the contents of the vehicle when they are impounding it for legitimate reasons. 
• Consent: Law enforcement can ask the driver or owner of the vehicle for consent to search it. If they consent, law enforcement can generally conduct a search and use any evidence they find of a crime against the suspect.

If you were the subject of a warrantless vehicle search, you should seek legal assistance to determine if your rights were violated and if you can challenge the evidence against you.

Limited Scope of Search Pursuant to the Automobile Exception

Under the automobile exception, the police may search a car only if there is probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of a crime will be discovered. Therefore, the police must generally know the types of objects that are the subject of the search, and officers may only search those areas of the car that could conceivably hold the evidence or the contraband. For example, if the cops have probable cause to believe there is a gun in a car, they can search the passenger compartment, under the seats, and inside the glove compartment, since the gun could be hidden in any of those places. If the police find a prescription pill bottle inside of the car, the officers cannot open the bottle under the automobile exception because there is no possibility that a gun could be located therein.

The standards of probable cause and emergency circumstances must exist to permit a warrantless search of a car. Courts prefer evidence to be secured after they have issued warrants, which ensures the greatest privacy protection to the accused and the safety of the law enforcement officer conducting the search. As a result, warrantless searches are subject to close scrutiny by the courts.

When the Automobile Exception Does Not Apply

Even though the automobile exception greatly expands the right of law enforcement to conduct warrantless searches, this right is not absolute. Law enforcement must have probable cause before conducting a search and must be able to show why obtaining a warrant was not feasible under the particular circumstances. Additionally, the officer’s ability to seize certain evidence or access certain parts of the vehicle may be legally restricted. 

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that a lock box or other container in a vehicle could not be searched without a warrant unless there was separate probable cause to believe contraband was held in the item. Courts have split decisions about whether law enforcement could seize a cell phone found in a vehicle or whether that would require a warrant. These decisions shape law enforcement and courts’ interpretations about whether their acts were legal. 

Can Automobile Exception Evidence Be Suppressed?

If police conducted a search without probable cause or went beyond the scope of the permitted search, it may be possible to file a motion to suppress such evidence. The exclusionary rule holds that if a search is found to be unreasonable, any evidence obtained in that search could be excluded. Your criminal defense attorney could argue that the search violated your constitutional rights and ask the court to suppress the evidence so it could not be used against you in a criminal trial. 

If the motion is successful, the court could rule that the evidence could not be presented against you. Without this evidence, there may be insufficient evidence for the prosecutor to continue with the case, which could lead to a dismissal of the criminal charges against you. 

Contact Our Experienced Criminal Defense Firm for a Confidential Consultation

Cases involving warrantless or unlawful searches may give rise to constitutional rights violation arguments. Even if the evidence obtained against you was in a vehicle, this does not necessarily mean that law enforcement conducted a legal search. Our skilled attorneys have extensive experience making challenges to law enforcement actions that violate our clients’ rights. 

We can help determine whether the automobile exception applies, whether the evidence can be suppressed, and what other options you have after carefully reviewing your situation. Call Spring & Spring today or contact us online for a confidential consultation.