United States v. Roach
590 F.2d 181 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, if police have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle on a public road, they may also conduct that search at a later time at the police station without obtaining a warrant.
Facts:
- Beacher Drell Roach and Ronnie Lee Stewart, wearing masks and armed, robbed a bank in Dallas, Georgia.
- They stole a security package containing a dye bomb designed to emit a red, tear-gas-like substance after being removed from the bank.
- Brenda Jackson drove the getaway car, and the dye bomb exploded inside, staining the interior.
- Roach took over driving from Jackson.
- A county deputy sheriff, alerted to the car's description, initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle occupied by Roach and Jackson.
- After Roach and Jackson exited the car, the deputy observed a large red stain on the car's front seat in plain view through the window.
- While detained in the police car, Jackson asked why they were being arrested, to which Roach responded, 'Shut up, you know why.'
Procedural Posture:
- Beacher Drell Roach appeared before a magistrate for a preliminary hearing.
- The magistrate found probable cause and bound Roach over to the grand jury.
- A federal grand jury returned an indictment against Roach.
- At trial in the United States District Court, a jury convicted Roach of bank robbery by force and carrying a firearm during commission of a felony.
- Roach (appellant) appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 and analysis of a part of a lawfully impounded vehicle, after the original exigent circumstances of the roadside stop have passed, violate the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Gee, J.
No. The warrantless seizure of the car part does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that under the automobile exception, the determination of exigency is made at the time of the vehicle's initial seizure, not at the time of the subsequent search. Citing Chambers v. Maroney, the court affirmed that if probable cause exists to search a vehicle at the scene of a stop, that probable cause and the associated exigency still exist when the vehicle is impounded at the police station. Because the deputy had probable cause to search the car upon seeing the red dye stain in plain view during a lawful stop, the later seizure and analysis of the stained car seat at the station was constitutionally permissible without a warrant. The primary object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy, and any expectation of privacy Roach had in the contents of the car was already diminished by the lawful stop and plain view observation.
Analysis:
This case solidifies and extends the reasoning of the automobile exception, particularly as established in Chambers v. Maroney. The court's decision clarifies that the 'mobility' justification for the exception does not cease once the vehicle is in police custody. This precedent provides law enforcement with significant flexibility, allowing them to move a vehicle to a secure location for a more thorough search without the procedural delay of obtaining a warrant. The ruling reinforces the legal principle that a diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile allows for intrusions that would be impermissible in a home, and that this diminished expectation continues after the vehicle has been impounded.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Roach