No, the search was not against the rules. The Constitution protects you from 'unreasonable' searches, but searching a car is different from searching a house. A car is mobile and can get away quickly, so it's often not practical for police to leave, get a warrant, and come back. As long as police have a solid reason (probable cause) to believe there's something illegal in the car, they are allowed to search it right away. The police here had good reason: they knew the guys were bootleggers, knew their car, and saw them on a known smuggling route.

Yes, the search was totally against the rules. The police didn't actually see or smell any alcohol; they just had a hunch from a deal that fell through months ago. You can't just arrest someone for a minor crime based on a suspicion. Because the arrest was illegal, the search that followed was also illegal. The police broke the rules, so the booze they found shouldn't have been used as evidence in court.

No, the search without a warrant didn't go against the Constitution because the agents had probable cause. The Constitution only stops unreasonable searches. For a search of a car without a warrant to be legal, it depends on whether the police had facts that would make a careful person think the car had something illegal in it. Here, the agents had good reason based on their previous meetings with the defendants, seeing their car coming from a place known for illegal liquor, and knowing the defendants were bootleggers. Cars can be searched without a warrant based on probable cause because they can quickly drive away before a warrant could be gotten. This has been allowed since the very first Congress. The probable cause rule balances protecting people's privacy and letting the police do their job.

The arrest and search here were unlawful because they were based on a mere hunch rather than probable cause. The law doesn't allow arrests without warrants for minor crimes not happening right in front of the arresting officer. The facts the agents knew at the time - a two-month old attempt to buy liquor and seeing the defendants' car on the road - weren't enough to create probable cause. The arrest can't be made legal by things found in the search after the arrest. Allowing searches based on the low suspicion here would ruin the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.

The "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement permits an officer to search an automobile if the officer has probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband.

The automobile exception "allows police officers to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband."

—if the search and seizure without a warrant are made upon probable cause, that is, upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains that which by law is subject to seizure and destruction, the search and seizure are valid.

Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances known to law enforcement officers are "sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed

—from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the government, as recognizing a necessary difference between the search of a store, dwelling house, or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon, or automobile …

And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search `warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief'that the action taken was appropriate

"The Fourth Amendment does not denounce all searches or seizures, but only such as are unreasonable."

The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens.

—of such a search. Travelers may be so stopped in crossing an international boundary, because of national self-protection reasonably requiring one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in. But those lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free …

No. A warrantless search of an automobile does not violate the Fourth Amendment if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches, not all warrantless searches, and there is a fundamental difference between a mobile vehicle and a stationary structure like a home. The Court reasoned that the mobility of an automobile makes it impracticable to secure a warrant in many cases, as the vehicle and its contents could be moved out of the jurisdiction before a warrant could be obtained. This distinction has been recognized since the founding of the government, with early customs laws allowing warrantless searches of ships for smuggled goods. The right to search a vehicle for contraband is not dependent on the right to arrest the driver; rather, it is dependent on the seizing officer having probable cause to believe the contents of the automobile violate the law. In this case, the officers' previous interactions with Carroll and Kiro, their knowledge of the specific car, and the car's movement from a known source of illegal liquor provided sufficient probable cause for the search.

Yes. The warrantless search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment because it was predicated on an unlawful arrest and lacked sufficient cause. The dissent argued that transporting liquor was a misdemeanor, for which an arrest without a warrant is only lawful if the offense is committed in the officer's presence. Here, the officers did not see, smell, or otherwise sense the liquor before the search; they acted on mere suspicion based on a two-and-a-half-month-old failed negotiation. The term 'discover' in the National Prohibition Act requires more than suspicion. Because the arrest was unlawful, the subsequent search was also unlawful, and the seized evidence should have been excluded. To allow a search based on mere suspicion would reduce the Fourth Amendment 'to a form of words' and violate fundamental rights.

No, the warrantless search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was based on probable cause. The Fourth Amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The legality of a search of a vehicle without a warrant depends on whether there was probable cause, based on the objective facts known to the officer at the time, to believe the vehicle contained contraband. The agents had probable cause here based on their prior dealings with the defendants, observation of their vehicle traveling from a known source of liquor supply, and the agents' knowledge that the defendants were involved in bootlegging. The mobility of vehicles justifies allowing their search without a warrant based on probable cause, as it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can quickly move out of the jurisdiction. This has been a recognized distinction since the first Congress. The probable cause standard strikes the appropriate balance between protecting individual privacy rights and allowing effective law enforcement.

The arrest and seizure here were unlawful because they were based on mere suspicion rather than probable cause. The Volstead Act does not authorize arrests without warrant for misdemeanors not committed in the presence of the arresting officer. The facts known to the agents at the time - a two-month old attempted purchase of liquor and seeing the defendants' car on the road - were insufficient to create probable cause. The legality of the arrest cannot be supported by facts uncovered in the subsequent search. Allowing seizures based on the level of suspicion present here would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections.

Carroll v. United States

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