Automobile Search Research Paper
THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE CLOSED CONTAINER IS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION APPLIES TO THE RV ALLOWING SCOPE OF THE SEARCH DUE TO ITS MOBILITY PROVEN 10 DAYS AFTER THE ARREST
Defendant’s RV was considered to be an automobile when the closed container was found in it.
In Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 1803-04 (1991) the Supreme Court held that a criminal suspect's right to be free from unreasonable searches was not violated when, after he gave a police officer permission to search his car, the officer opened a dosed container found within the car. Consent to search a vehicle inherently encompasses the entire vehicle and its contents, including closed containers. Id. The scope of the search extends to any …show more content…
Carney, 471 U.S. 386,392 (1985). A fully mobile motor home located in a public place is a vehicle for purposes of the “automobile exception.” Id.
The warrantless automobile search doctrine is based upon the inherent mobility of vehicles and the reduced expectation of privacy associated therewith and consequently, it applies to both cars on the move on the highway and those, which are stationery. Id at 391. The Supreme Court in this case held that under certain circumstances a motor home falls within the vehicle exception because it involves concerns similar to those surrounding automobiles and other readily mobile vehicles. Id. The Court emphasized that “[w]hen a vehicle is being used on the highways, or if it is readily capable of such use and is found stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes—temporary or otherwise—the two justifications for the vehicle exception come into play.” Id at 392. In addition, the court held that a warrantless search of a mobile home was within the automobile exception because “even in cases where an automobile was not immediately mobile, the lesser expectation of privacy resulting from its use as a readily-mobile vehicle justified application of the vehicular exception” Id at
Defendant’s RV was considered to be an automobile when the closed container was found in it.
In Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 1803-04 (1991) the Supreme Court held that a criminal suspect's right to be free from unreasonable searches was not violated when, after he gave a police officer permission to search his car, the officer opened a dosed container found within the car. Consent to search a vehicle inherently encompasses the entire vehicle and its contents, including closed containers. Id. The scope of the search extends to any …show more content…
Carney, 471 U.S. 386,392 (1985). A fully mobile motor home located in a public place is a vehicle for purposes of the “automobile exception.” Id.
The warrantless automobile search doctrine is based upon the inherent mobility of vehicles and the reduced expectation of privacy associated therewith and consequently, it applies to both cars on the move on the highway and those, which are stationery. Id at 391. The Supreme Court in this case held that under certain circumstances a motor home falls within the vehicle exception because it involves concerns similar to those surrounding automobiles and other readily mobile vehicles. Id. The Court emphasized that “[w]hen a vehicle is being used on the highways, or if it is readily capable of such use and is found stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes—temporary or otherwise—the two justifications for the vehicle exception come into play.” Id at 392. In addition, the court held that a warrantless search of a mobile home was within the automobile exception because “even in cases where an automobile was not immediately mobile, the lesser expectation of privacy resulting from its use as a readily-mobile vehicle justified application of the vehicular exception” Id at