Thursday, September 6, 2012

California v. Carney case brief

California v. Carney
471 U.S. 386 (1985)



OVERVIEW 
-Carney, marijuana for sex seller, contends that law enforcement agents violated the 4th Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search of a motor home, located in a public place, based on probable cause.

FACTS
-DEA agent stopped a kid leaving Carney’s mobile home after some suspicious activity, and the kid told him he traded sex for weed.  The officer made the kid go back, and when Carney came to the door, arrested him.
-Carney did not consent to a search, but the officers did anyway, without a warrant, and found drugs, scales, etc.


PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-Lower courts suppressed the evidence.


ISSUE
-Whether law enforcement agents violated the 4th Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search of a motor home, located in a public place, based on probable cause.

HOLDING
-Law enforcement agents did not violate the 4th Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search of a motor home, which was located in a public place, based on probable cause, since a motor home is generally a vehicle.

ANALYSIS
  • Mobility of automobiles creates circumstances of such exigency that, as a practical necessity, rigorous enforcement of the warrant requirement is impossible.
  • Also, the expectation of privacy in a motor-vehicle is lower than in a home.
  • While motor home possesses some of the attributes of a home, it is used more like a vehicle.
  • Not applying the exception here makes a motor home the ideal place to deal drugs…
DISSENT
  • Priority should be given to the rule, not the exception, since a motor home is in-between a home and a vehicle.
FURTHER NOTES
  • Pennsylvania v. Labron; Pennsylvania v. Kilgore:  Officers searched cars without exigent circumstances, and the US Supreme Court overruled PA’s ruling that the lack of exigent circumstances invalidated the searches.
  • Florida v. White:  Officers searched ?’s car months after seeing it used to deliver cocaine.  US Supreme Court overruled Florida’s ruling that the lack of exigent circumstances invalidated the searches.

No comments:

Post a Comment

In re Morgan Brown Case Brief: Key Takeaways on Trademark Descriptiveness and Acquired Distinctiveness

Case Brief: In re Morgan Brown, 119 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1350 (Trademark Tr. & App. Bd. 2016) Facts: Morgan Brown applied to register a trademar...