California v. Carney case brief summary
471 U.S. 386 (1985)
CASE FACTS
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that while defendant's motor home possessed some attributes of a home, it clearly fell within the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement because it was readily mobile and was situated in a way or place that objectively indicated that it was being used as a vehicle.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
471 U.S. 386 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The State challenged a ruling of the
Supreme Court of California that a warrantless search of defendant's
motor home was unreasonable because the vehicle exception to the
warrant requirement did not apply as expectations of privacy in a
motor home were more like those for a home than an automobile.CASE FACTS
- After receiving information that the exchange of marijuana for sex was taking place at defendant's motor home, which was parked on a public lot, law enforcement officials observed defendant and a youth enter the mobile home.
- The youth later stated that he received marijuana in exchange for sexual contacts with defendant.
- Without a warrant or consent, one agent entered the motor home and observed marijuana.
- Defendant was convicted for possession of marijuana for sale.
- Ultimately, the state supreme court reversed, holding that the warrantless search of the motor home was unreasonable as the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement did not apply.
- On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that defendant's motor home clearly fell within the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement because it was readily mobile and was situated in a way or place that objectively indicated that it was being used as a vehicle.
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that while defendant's motor home possessed some attributes of a home, it clearly fell within the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement because it was readily mobile and was situated in a way or place that objectively indicated that it was being used as a vehicle.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment