UNITED STATES of America v. James Frederick CHURCH
490 F.2d 353 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
If law enforcement officers have probable cause and exigent circumstances justifying an immediate warrantless search of a vehicle under the automobile exception, that justification does not dissipate merely because the officers delay the search for several hours to conduct surveillance, even if a warrant could have been obtained during that time.
Facts:
- At approximately 5:00 a.m., U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents began surveillance of the All American Canal area near the U.S.-Mexico border, a location known for smuggling.
- Around 6:30 a.m., the agents observed a caravan of four automobiles cross the canal and proceed north.
- After the caravan split up, agents lost visual contact but later located two of the vehicles parked and unoccupied in downtown El Centro at approximately 6:50 a.m.
- Agents approached one of the parked vehicles, detected the strong odor of marijuana, and observed a kilo brick of marijuana in plain view inside.
- Instead of searching the vehicle immediately, agents established surveillance and waited for four hours.
- At 11:00 a.m., James Frederick Church entered the vehicle and drove it to a nearby motel, where he remained for about forty minutes.
- After Church left the motel and began driving west out of El Centro, agents stopped the vehicle.
- Upon stopping the vehicle, agents again smelled marijuana, conducted a warrantless search, and discovered 217 kilos of marijuana.
Procedural Posture:
- James Frederick Church was charged in a federal trial court with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
- Prior to trial, Church filed a motion to suppress the marijuana evidence, arguing it was obtained through an illegal warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress the evidence.
- Following his conviction, Church (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of his suppression motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement permit a warrantless search of a vehicle that officers had probable cause to search hours earlier, when the vehicle was stationary, but which they only searched after a suspect entered it and began driving away?
Opinions:
Majority - Sneed, J.
Yes. The warrantless search was permissible. The exigent circumstances and probable cause that existed when the agents first found the parked car—its mobility, location on a public street, the smell of marijuana, and the visible contraband—justified an immediate warrantless search under the automobile exception established in Carroll v. United States. This justification did not vanish simply because the agents chose to delay the search for several hours to conduct surveillance. Evaluating the need for a warrant based on the subsequent period of delay would be an improper use of 'hindsight,' and the initial justification for the search remained valid at the time the search was ultimately conducted.
Concurring - Aldrich, Sr. J.
Yes, but on different grounds. The initial justification for a warrantless search did not automatically carry over for four hours, during which the five agents present had an ample and practical opportunity to obtain a warrant. The proper justification is that when Church entered the car and drove away with known contraband, he committed a felony in the officers' presence, giving them grounds to arrest him. The warrantless search was then permissible due to the new exigent circumstances created by the mobile vehicle at the time of the lawful arrest, consistent with Carroll v. United States and Chambers v. Maroney.
Concurring - Duniway, J.
Yes. The court is bound by its prior decision in United States v. Cohn, which is controlling in this case. However, the better legal rationale, consistent with Preston v. United States, is not that the initial exigency carried over, but that new exigent circumstances arose at the time of the arrest when the car became mobile. The search was valid because it occurred contemporaneously with the arrest of the driver of a vehicle on a public street. While the search is upheld, officers should obtain a warrant whenever possible to avoid these legal challenges.
Analysis:
This decision expands the automobile exception by holding that the exigency required for a warrantless search, once established, can persist for a significant period even when officers have a practical opportunity to secure a warrant. This creates a notable tension with Supreme Court precedent like Coolidge v. New Hampshire, which generally requires exigent circumstances to exist at the moment of the search. The two concurring opinions highlight this doctrinal weakness, suggesting the more stable legal ground is to find a new exigency at the time of arrest, a rationale that may limit the broad 'no hindsight' rule of the majority in future cases.
Unlock the full brief for UNITED STATES of America v. James Frederick CHURCH