Concurrence McKenna | End date 1925 | |
 | ||
Full case name George Carroll, John Kiro v. United States Citations 267 U.S. 132 (more)45 S. Ct. 280; 69 L.Ed. 543; 39 A. L. R. 790 Majority Taft, joined by Holmes, Van Devanter, Brandeis, Butler, Sanford Dissent McReynolds, joined by Sutherland Similar Chimel v California, Katz v United States, United States v Ross, Weeks v United States, California v Acevedo | ||
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrantless search of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. The case has also been used to increase the scope of warrantless searches.
Contents
Background
Federal prohibition officers arranged an undercover purchase of liquor from George Carroll, an illicit dealer under investigation, but the transaction was not completed. They later saw Carroll and one Kiro driving on the highway from Detroit to Grand Rapids, Michigan, which they regularly patrolled. They pursued, pulled them over, and searched the car, finding illegal liquor behind the rear seat.
The National Prohibition Act provided that officers could make warrantless searches of vehicles, boats, or airplanes when they had reason to believe illegal liquor was being transported and that law enforced the Eighteenth Amendment.
Opinion of the court
The Court noted that Congress early observed the need for a search warrant in border search situations, and Congress always recognized a necessary difference between searches of buildings and vehicles for contraband goods, where it is not practical to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. The warrantless search under these circumstances was thus valid.
The Court held, however, that
The Court added that where the securing of a warrant is reasonably practicable, it must be used.
This became known as the Carroll doctrine: a vehicle could be searched without a search warrant if there was probable cause to believe that evidence is present in the vehicle, coupled with exigent circumstances to believe that the vehicle could be removed from the area before a warrant could be obtained.
Subsequent events
In 1927, the Florida Legislature enacted the Carroll decision into statute law in Florida, and the statute remains in effect.
In United States v. Di Re, the Court declined to extend Carroll to permit searches of passengers in a vehicle that had apparently been lawfully stopped. In Di Re there was no probable cause to believe that the passenger was holding any evidence.
The Court relied on Carroll in Cooper v. California to observe that a search of a vehicle may be reasonable where the same search of a dwelling may not be reasonable.
Due to a 2009 decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Gant, there may be new restrictions on warrantless searches of automobiles under certain limited circumstances. That ruling requires either that the vehicle's owner has a reasonable chance of moving the vehicle before police can get a warrant. In the case of Gant, the suspect was arrested while the vehicle was parked. Arizona v. Gant does not automatically preclude Carroll and does not overrule it.