 |
 |
|
| |
|
|
United States v. Chadwick
Supreme Court of United States (1977)
Respondent/Defendant: Chadwich and party; the defendants were carrying a heavy footlocker which was leaking talcum powder, material that is used to hide the odor of marijuana. The officers at Boston train station brought a dog and the dog signaled that there were narcotics in the footlocker. As the defendants were loading the footlocker into the vehicle, the officers arrested them. Later at the police station, the officer broke the two locks which protected the footlocker and they discovered large quantity of marijuana. The trial court suppressed the evidence ruling that the officers should have obtained a search warrant before opening the footlocker.
Issue: Was the search of the footlocker lawful?
Holding: No
Legal Reasoning: The court ruled that the defendants had reasonable expectation of privacy in the footlocker. The court further ruled that since the officers had no exigent circumstances and since the locked footlocker deserves more protection than an open automobile, the officers should have gained a warrant before opening the footlocker. The court ruled that 4th Amendment protects 'people and not places' and the search of the footlocker was unlawful. The ruling of the lower court was affirmed.