Chambers v. Maroney:   
United States Supreme Court, 1970. 

Statement of the Case:

      Chambers, arrested after identified for robbing a gas station, contends that evidence seized from within the vehicle, in which he was riding at the time of his arrest, is inadmissible in court as the vehicle was searched without a warrant and the car was only searched after being driven to the police station.

Procedure:

      Lower courts allowed the evidence.

Facts:

      A service station was robbed by two men. Witnesses saw a blue compact station wagon circling the station during the day and saw the same car speed off after the robbery, and that four men were in the car with one wearing a green sweater. The service station attendant told the police that one of the men was wearing a green sweater and the other a trench coat.

      The car was stopped within the hour and the occupants were arrested. After the arrest the car was taken to the police station and searched without a warrant. Guns were found along with cards bearing the name of another service station attendant that was robbed two weeks ago. After a warrant search of Ds home, police found ammunition similar to that found in one of the guns taken from the station wagon.

Issue:

      Whether it is a violation of the 4^th amendment to search the D’s vehicle at another place, such as a police station, without a warrant incident to that arrest.

Procedural Result:

      Affirmed for State.

Holding:

      It is NOT a violation of the 4^th amendment to search the ?’s vehicle at another place, such as a police station, without a warrant incident to that arrest, so long as there was probable cause to search it at the place of arrest.

Reasoning:

• Court distinguishes between the home and a vehicle, as a machine capable of conveyance can be searched in a way that would be a violation at a home.
• The right to search and the validity of a seizure are not dependent on the right to arrest but are dependent on the reasonable cause the seizing officer has for belief that the contents of the auto offend against the law.
• Under these circumstances, either the search must be made immediately without a warrant or the car itself must be seized and held without a warrant for whatever period is necessary to obtain a warrant for the search.
• However, there was probable cause for the search and seizure of the car that was independent of that required for the arrest.
• The car could have been searched on the spot, it was not unreasonable to take the car to the station and search it there instead of searching it in the middle of a parking lot in the middle of the night.
• There is really no difference between making the search on the spot, or at the station that night.

Concurring/Dissenting:

• The officers should preserve evidence and make the search possible, BUT…
• Taking the car to the station shows a lack of exigent circumstances.