 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Chambers v. Maroney 399 U.S. 42 (1970)
Author: Libby
STATEMENT OF THE CASE: D's contends that evidence seized from within the vehicle, in which petitioner was riding at the time of his arrest, is inadmissible in court as the vehicle was searched without a warrant.
PROCEDURE BELOW: Petitioner, convicted of robbery, sought review of a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
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. .
LEGAL ISSUE: Once an accused is under arrest and in custody, is a search made at another place without a warrant incident to that arrest?
HOLDING: Once an accused is under arrest and in custody, a search made at another place without a warrant is not incident to that arrest.
REASONING: (White, Justice) No. There is no doubt that the police were justified in their arrest of the occupants of the car as they fit the description given by witnesses at the crime scene. They also were justified in an immediate search of the car pursuant to that arrest. 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 searchi! ng it in the middle of a parking lot in the middle of the night, once the car was in the station there was little to choose from in terms of consequences between a warrantless search and the car’s immobilization until a warrant was obtained. Affirmed.
CRITICAL SUMMARY: The offenders were in custody, the vehicle was already impounded and legally seized; therefore, the search could have waited until the proper warrants were obtained. Why not follow the law!