Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Synopsis:
Police don't need a warrant, but only need probable cause to search one's vehicle. In Collins v. Virginia (the Supreme Court of VA decided this case in 2015), SCoVA ruled that parked cars need no warrant to be searched either.
This stemmed from a police officer who walked onto a person's property and removed the tarp from a motorcycle. The officer was looking for a motorcycle that had run from him previously. The officer did not find the bike he was looking for, but found (via a VIN number check) the bike he was looking at was stolen. He arrested the man who had the bike.
The case was appealed, and now oral arguments began yesterday with SCOTUS.
Police don't need a warrant, but only need probable cause to search one's vehicle. In Collins v. Virginia (the Supreme Court of VA decided this case in 2015), SCoVA ruled that parked cars need no warrant to be searched either.
This stemmed from a police officer who walked onto a person's property and removed the tarp from a motorcycle. The officer was looking for a motorcycle that had run from him previously. The officer did not find the bike he was looking for, but found (via a VIN number check) the bike he was looking at was stolen. He arrested the man who had the bike.
The case was appealed, and now oral arguments began yesterday with SCOTUS.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1027_j4el.pdfCHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I thought your point was that -- that you understood on the automobile exception for it to have -- include a categorical exigency aspect. In other words, while it's not the case that you see the guy, you know, revving up the motorcycle about to take off, which would be an exigent circumstance, but you think because -- you want to extend or apply the automobile exception to stationary vehicles on -- on -- within the curtilage because you think all the guy has to do is he sees the police officer, he runs out of the house, starts it up and goes away.
MR. COX: Yes, Your Honor. I think that's one of the least controversial points in this case is that because this Court has repeatedly held that a car doesn't actually have to be moving or with somebody there with a key, ready to jump on it.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, then that -that goes back to my basic question, which is how do I differentiate the -- the car in the garage if -- if -- if -- or the car through a window that you can see?
You would say that exigent circumstance -- that's what Virginia Court appeared to say, that it created an absolute rule. The police can break into anything, go anywhere where they see the car, whether they at that place legitimately or not.
MR. COX: Yes. This -- this Court has treated it as an absolute rule. They've never carved -- carved back on that.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And that's the rule you want us to uphold?
MR. COX: It -- it could. I mean, you could just apply -- apply that rule to this case and not make any new law, if you wanted to.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Well, and then we should just go ahead and do the same thing for drugs and papers too, because -- and Entek, we can overrule Entek while we're at it, going all the way back to the founding because, you know, we can see somebody, they have a fireplace, they have a chimney, they could destroy the papers that we see through the window or the drugs. We know that they have indoor plumbing. And so they can be readily destroyed too? What's the difference between the destruction of drugs and papers in a home and a car in -- in the garage?