Cardwell v. Lewis
417 U.S. 583 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment is not violated by the warrantless examination of the exterior of a car, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in what is knowingly exposed to the public. A warrantless seizure of such a car from a public place is permissible under the Fourth Amendment when law enforcement has probable cause to believe the car is itself evidence of a crime.
Facts:
- On July 19, 1967, Paul Radcliffe was found murdered near his car, which had gone over an embankment.
- Police made casts of tire tracks at the scene and collected foreign paint scrapings from the right rear fender of Radcliffe's car.
- The investigation focused on Arthur Ben Lewis, Jr., whose car was similar in color to the paint scrapings and who had business dealings with Radcliffe.
- On the day after the murder, Lewis had body repair work done on the front of his car.
- Months later, on October 10, 1967, police asked Lewis to come to their office for questioning.
- Lewis complied, driving his car and parking it in a public commercial lot about half a block from the police office.
- After Lewis was arrested inside the office that evening, police took his car keys and parking claim check.
- Police then had Lewis's car towed from the public lot to a police impoundment facility, where its tire tread and paint were examined the next day.
Procedural Posture:
- Arthur Ben Lewis, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder in an Ohio state trial court.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
- Lewis then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
- The District Court granted the writ, ruling that the seizure and examination of Lewis's car violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The state (represented by Cardwell, the warden) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari to review the decision of the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the warrantless seizure of an automobile from a public parking lot and the subsequent examination of its exterior, when police have probable cause to believe the vehicle is evidence of a crime, violate the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. The warrantless seizure and exterior examination of the automobile did not violate the Fourth Amendment. An individual has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle compared to a home, and this expectation does not extend to the vehicle's exterior, which is knowingly exposed to the public. Because the police only examined the tire tread and took paint scrapings from the exterior, no constitutionally protected privacy interest was infringed. Furthermore, the seizure of the car from a public lot was permissible; unlike the car in Coolidge v. New Hampshire which was on private property, this car was in a public place, akin to the situation in Chambers v. Maroney. The exigency for the seizure arose at the time of Lewis's arrest, creating an incentive for associates to remove the vehicle, and the fact that police may have had probable cause earlier did not negate the reasonableness of their prompt action.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
Yes. The warrantless seizure and search of the automobile violated the Fourth Amendment. Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, and none of the well-delineated exceptions apply here. The 'automobile exception' from Carroll v. United States is inapplicable because the vehicle was not mobile; Lewis and his keys were securely in police custody, and there was no realistic possibility the car could be moved or tampered with before a warrant could be obtained. The police had probable cause long before the arrest and had ample opportunity to secure a warrant. Absent any genuine exigent circumstances, the seizure was unconstitutional, and the evidence should have been suppressed.
Concurring - Justice Powell
No. The judgment should be reversed, but on procedural grounds rather than the merits of the Fourth Amendment claim. Federal collateral review of a state prisoner’s Fourth Amendment claims on a habeas corpus petition should be limited to whether the petitioner had a fair opportunity to litigate the claim in state courts. Since there was no contention that Lewis was denied such an opportunity, federal habeas review is inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'automobile exception' by distinguishing between a car's interior and exterior for Fourth Amendment purposes. It establishes the principle that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the exterior surfaces of a vehicle, thus allowing for warrantless examinations of features like paint and tires based on probable cause. The plurality's broad interpretation of 'exigent circumstances'—suggesting they can arise at the moment of arrest even if probable cause existed earlier—gives law enforcement greater latitude to seize vehicles from public places without a warrant. This decision lowers the constitutional barrier for police to gather physical evidence from the outside of vehicles suspected of being involved in a crime.
Unlock the full brief for Cardwell v. Lewis