Cooper v. California
386 U.S. 58 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a vehicle lawfully impounded by police as evidence under a state forfeiture statute is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, where the search is closely related to the reason for the arrest and impoundment.
Facts:
- Petitioner George Cooper sold heroin to a police informer.
- Upon Cooper's arrest for a narcotics violation, police officers seized his automobile.
- The seizure was mandated by a California statute requiring any vehicle used to store or transport narcotics to be seized and held as evidence pending forfeiture proceedings.
- Cooper's vehicle was taken to a garage and impounded.
- One week after the arrest, police conducted a warrantless search of the impounded car.
- During the search of the glove compartment, police found a small piece of a brown paper sack, which was later linked to the heroin packaging.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Cooper was convicted of selling heroin in a California state trial court.
- Evidence obtained from the warrantless search of his car was introduced at his trial.
- Cooper appealed his conviction to the California District Court of Appeal.
- The appellate court, as the intermediate appellate court, held the search was unconstitutional under Preston v. United States but affirmed the conviction, deeming the error harmless under the state constitution.
- The California Supreme Court, the state's highest court, declined to hear the case.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
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 a warrantless search of a vehicle, lawfully impounded by police as evidence pursuant to a state forfeiture statute and conducted one week after the owner's arrest, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
No. The warrantless search of a vehicle lawfully held by police for use as evidence in a forfeiture proceeding is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This case is distinguished from Preston v. United States, where the car's custody was unrelated to the vagrancy charge. Here, the police were required by state law to seize Cooper's car because of the specific crime for which he was arrested—a narcotics violation. The subsequent search was closely related to the reason for the arrest, the reason for the impoundment, and the reason the car was being retained. Given that the police had to hold the car for a lengthy period until forfeiture proceedings were complete, it was not unreasonable for them to search the vehicle, even for their own protection. The test is not whether it was reasonable to obtain a warrant, but whether the search itself was reasonable under the circumstances.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The warrantless search of the vehicle was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment. This case is indistinguishable from Preston v. United States, where a warrantless search of a lawfully impounded vehicle was found unconstitutional. Lawful custody of a car does not itself justify a warrantless search. The state court determined that the California forfeiture statute did not authorize a search, only seizure and impoundment. Since the car was securely in a garage and the petitioner was in custody, there was no risk of it being moved, removing any exigent circumstances. Police should be required to obtain a warrant to search a car just as they must for a home, unless the search is incident to a lawful arrest.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for automobiles. It distinguishes between police impoundment for convenience (as in Preston) and impoundment of a vehicle as evidence in a forfeiture proceeding. By focusing on the close relationship between the reason for custody and the crime of arrest, the Court justifies a delayed, warrantless search as reasonable. This ruling broadens police authority to search vehicles they are holding and shifts the constitutional analysis from the feasibility of obtaining a warrant to the overall reasonableness of the search based on the nature of the police custody.
Unlock the full brief for Cooper v. California