California v. Acevedo (1991)
United States Supreme Court
Author: P Mac Daddy

Procedure: D was convicted in California state court with possession of marijuana for sale and moved to suppress the marijuana found in the bag. His motion was denied, and he pleaded guilty but appealed the denial of the suppression motion. The California Court of Appeals ruled that the marijuana evidence should have been suppressed. The California Supreme Court denied review. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Facts: In 1987 Officer Coleman of the Santa Ana received a call from a Federal Drug Agent in Hawaii about a large package containing marijuana they seized that was addressed to JR Daza who resided in Santa Ana. The drug agent told Officer Coleman, that they were going to allow the package to go to FedEx and that the Santa Ana PD should see who goes and picks it up and bust them. The officers observed Daza pick up the package of marijuana, dispose of the shipping container in a dumpster and he was arrested leaving his apartment with 1 ½ pounds of weed on his person. The police later saw Acevedo (D) enter and leave Daza's apartment, two hours after Daza had picked up a package that they knew contained marijuana. When D left Daza's apartment, he was carrying a bag approximately the size of one of the packages of marijuana. D put the package in the trunk of his car and drove away. The police stopped the car. They opened both the trunk and the bag, which contained marijuana as suspected by the police.

Issue: Does the 4th Amendment require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to search a container or package in a car when there is probable cause to support a search of the entire vehicle?

Holding: No! A warrant is not required to search a container, package, or compartment within a vehicle provided that there is probable cause to believe that the object is in the vehicle. Cars are movable instruments in which evidence can easily be spirited away where it will never be found again by law enforcement!

Reasoning: (Blackmun) No. A warrant is not required to search a container, package, or compartment within a vehicle provided that there is probable cause to believe that the object is in the vehicle. This case resolved the inconsistency between cases involving searches of vehicles and searches of other movable containers, such as luggage or a paper bag in the trunk. The Carroll doctrine permitted a warrantless search of an entire vehicle provided that the search was supported by probable cause. However, this doctrine was overbroad; it included areas where the police would have no reason to check. In this case, the car would have been impounded anyway, and once the police had possession, they would have been allowed to search the whole car. The decision, however, is limited to those areas where the police already had probable cause to search. Reversed, for plaintiff the state of California. (Page 177) “We therefore interpret Carroll as providing one rule to govern all automobile searches. The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.”

Concurring: (Scalia) The vehicle exemption to the 4th Amendment should be abandoned. Reasonable searches under the 4th Amendment should be interpreted consistently with common law, making it reasonable to search any closed container located outside a privately owned building provided there is probable cause for the search. (Extra)

Dissent: (Stevens) the majority only gives lip service to the traditional presumption that searches without warrants are per se unreasonable under the 4th Amendment. There are no exceptional circumstances present to merit invading D's privacy interest. (Extra)