Yes. A motor home is still a vehicle, so the special 'car rule' that allows warrantless searches applies. The court explained that this rule exists for two reasons: 1) cars can be driven away quickly, and 2) the government heavily regulates vehicles, so people have less expectation of privacy in them compared to their homes. Since Carney's motor home was in a public lot and could be driven off at any moment, it was treated like a car, not a house. Making different rules for different types of cars would be too confusing for police.

No. A motor home is also a home, and you're supposed to have a lot of privacy in your home. The police should have gotten a warrant. These judges argued that because people live in motor homes, they deserve more privacy protection than a regular car offers. The motor home was parked and wasn't going anywhere, so the police had plenty of time to go to a judge and get a search warrant. They felt the Court was unfairly weakening the Fourth Amendment's strong protection of people's homes.

Yes, the police search was okay without a warrant. We say vehicles can be searched without a warrant in some situations, even motor homes. This is because vehicles can be easily driven away and people expect less privacy in vehicles than in homes. It doesn't matter if a motor home can be used as a home too. Here, it looked like the motor home was being used for travel, not as a house, so police could search it like a regular vehicle if they had a good reason to think it had illegal items inside.

The Court was wrong to let police search the parked motor home without a warrant. Motor homes are a mix between a vehicle and a house, so they should get more privacy than regular cars. Just because something can be moved doesn't automatically mean police can search it without a warrant. People use motor homes as temporary homes, so they expect more privacy inside them. The Court should have looked at how the motor home was being used and where it was parked. Here, police could have easily gotten a warrant while the motor home was parked in a lot, so the search wasn't okay unless there was an emergency.

—noted that even in cases where an automobile is not immediately mobile, the lesser expectation of privacy resulting from its use as a vehicle has justified the application of the exception.

"Under the automobile exception, police officers may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if they have `probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime.'"

The United States Supreme Court has long recognized an "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's requirement that police officers must generally obtain a warrant before conducting a search.

—the US Supreme Court held that the search of a motor home parked in a public place fell within the scope of the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement.

The two primary justifications for the automobile exception are mobility and a reduced expectation of privacy.

This right is "preserved by a requirement that searches be conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by an independent judicial officer."

"When 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

First, the Supreme Court has recognized a diminished expectation of privacy in a car, partly because cars that travel on public roads are subject to "pervasive regulation."

The search of the motor home in Carney was upheld under the motor vehicle exception to the warrant requirement

The Supreme Court has explained that "pervasive schemes of regulation, which necessarily lead to reduced expectations of privacy, and the exigencies attendant to ready mobility justify searches [of vehicles] without prior recourse to the authority of a magistrate so long as the overriding standard of probable cause is met."

Yes. The warrantless search of the motor home is permissible under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. A vehicle that is readily mobile and situated in a public place has a reduced expectation of privacy, and the exigency of its potential to be moved justifies dispensing with the warrant requirement when probable cause exists. The Court reasoned that two justifications support the automobile exception: the ready mobility of vehicles and the reduced expectation of privacy stemming from their pervasive regulation. The Court found that both justifications applied to Carney's motor home because it was 'readily mobile by the turn of an ignition key' and was located in a setting that an objective observer would conclude was for transportation, not residential purposes. To distinguish between motor homes and other vehicles based on their potential to be used as a home would create an unworkable standard and ignore that any vehicle can be used to transport contraband.

No. The warrantless search of a motor home violates the Fourth Amendment because it functions as a home and therefore carries a heightened expectation of privacy that demands the protection of a warrant. The dissent argued that a motor home is a 'hybrid' that combines the mobility of an automobile with the privacy characteristics of a house. When a vehicle serves as a dwelling, the privacy interests outweigh the law enforcement interests that justify the automobile exception. The dissent contended that the inherent mobility of the motor home was not a sufficient justification for a warrantless search, especially since the vehicle was stationary in a parking lot near a courthouse where a warrant could have been easily and quickly obtained. The dissent emphasized that the warrant requirement is the rule, and the automobile exception should be narrowly applied only when exigent circumstances truly make securing a warrant impracticable.

Yes. The warrantless search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the automobile exception applies to motor homes. The Court holds that when 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, the two justifications for the vehicle exception come into play. First, the vehicle is readily mobile and second, there is a reduced expectation of privacy stemming from its use as a licensed motor vehicle subject to regulation. The Court rejects the argument that the motor home should be treated more like a house than a car because it could function as a home. The Court reasons that to distinguish between a motor home and an ordinary car would require consideration of size and quality of appointments, and would raise difficulties in distinguishing between 'worthy' and 'unworthy' vehicles. The Court concludes that the motor home was so situated that an objective observer would conclude that it was being used as a vehicle and not as a residence. Therefore, the search was not unreasonable under the automobile exception.

The Court errs by applying the automobile exception to a parked motor home. The motor home has attributes of both a car and a house, and therefore presents a hybrid case between the privacy interests in a home and the law enforcement interests that support the automobile exception. By choosing to apply the automobile exception, the Court accords priority to an exception rather than the general rule, and abandons the limits imposed by prior cases. Mobility alone is not a sufficient justification for the automobile exception, especially in the face of heightened privacy expectations. Motor homes are more like a house than a car in terms of privacy expectations, as evidenced by their furnishings and use as a temporary residence. The Court should have evaluated the motor home's use and location to determine whether the automobile exception was appropriate. Here, the motor home was parked in a downtown lot where it could have easily been detained while a warrant was obtained. The search was therefore unreasonable absent exigent circumstances.

No. The warrantless search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the automobile exception applies to motor homes. We hold that when 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, the two justifications for the vehicle exception come into play. First, the vehicle is readily mobile, and second, there is a reduced expectation of privacy stemming from its use as a licensed motor vehicle subject to regulation. We reject the argument that the motor home should be treated more like a house than a car because it could function as a home. We reason that to distinguish between a motor home and an ordinary car would require consideration of size and quality of appointments, and would raise difficulties in distinguishing between 'worthy' and 'unworthy' vehicles. We conclude that the motor home was so situated that an objective observer would determine it was being used as a vehicle and not as a residence. Therefore, the search was not unreasonable under the automobile exception.

Yes. This warrantless search violates the Fourth Amendment. I dissent. The majority errs by applying the automobile exception to a parked motor home. The motor home has attributes of both a car and a house, and therefore presents a hybrid case between the privacy interests in a home and the law enforcement interests that support the automobile exception. By choosing to apply the automobile exception, the majority accords priority to an exception rather than the general rule, and abandons the limits imposed by prior cases. Mobility alone is not a sufficient justification for the automobile exception, especially in the face of heightened privacy expectations. Motor homes are more like a house than a car in terms of privacy expectations, as evidenced by their furnishings and use as a temporary residence. We should have evaluated the motor home's use and location to determine whether the automobile exception was appropriate. Here, the motor home was parked in a downtown lot where it could have easily been detained while a warrant was obtained. The search was therefore unreasonable absent exigent circumstances.

California v. Carney

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot