Running Head: EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND VEHICLE EXCEPTION
Exigent Circumstances and the Vehicle Exception Rule
Ivanna Yanin Cadena
Police Systems and Practices / CRIJ 2328
23 April 2015
Assistant Professor Scott Mann
1
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND VEHILCE EXCEPTION
2
Exigent Circumstances and the Vehicle Exception Rule
The reality of modern day policing in the United States is that our law enforcement
officials are confronted with many difficult challenges on a daily basis. Many of these challenges
derive from the ongoing decision making that police officers are compelled to make. The
promptness of their decision making becomes even more of a challenge when considering the
limitation of powers that the United States Constitution provides to the officers. With the partial
protection that is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in requiring a search warrant, police are
often defied to a restriction of power when preparing to conduct a search. Fortunately, the courts
have recognized these limitations and have made various exceptions to the search warrant
requirement.
Exigent Circumstances
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that in order to obtain
a search warrant, the police officer must have reasonable probable cause and must also be able to
specify the scope of the search with particularity (Pettry, 2012). According to Pettry (2012), the
Fourth Amendment fails to provide specification of precisely when and under what
circumstances a warrant is to be obtained and only stipulates that “searches and seizures inside a
home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable”, leaving enough room for a variety of
stipulations (p.27). These applications are often what make it rather difficult for an officer to
effectively perform their job. They are also the cause of disagreement in many court cases.
According to Pettry (2012), the Supreme Court recently provided clear guidance to law
enforcement officers regarding the circumstances under which they could make a warrantless
entry of a home to render emergency aid. These circumstances fall under the category of the
exigency exception to the search warrant requirement.
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND VEHILCE EXCEPTION
3
The case of Wayne v. United States [1963] provided the original idea of the exigent
circumstances exception (Pettry, 2011). After receiving an emergency 911 call, police officers
responded to the scene of an apartment where they knocked on the door and requested entry. Ten
minutes of repeated knocking went by and there was still no response. This gave time for the
victim’s sister who had previously escaped the apartment in search of help, to return to the scene.
After contacting the caretaker of the apartment in hopes of producing master keys, they found
that double locks had been separately installed. The police then decided to break down the door
and entered to find the victim’s dead body along with separate evidence. The defendant of this
case argued that the evidence be suppressed due to the fact that it was obtained during the course
of an illegal search and seizure. This motion of suppression was properly denied after being
reviewed by the Supreme Court with strong consideration of the emergency that had been
expressed by the victim’s sister and prompted by the defendant’s failure to answer the door
(Wayne v. United States, 1963).
According to Pettry (2011), the response noted by the judge was that “a warrant is not
required to break down a door to enter a burning home to rescue occupants or extinguish a fire, to
prevent a shooting or to bring emergency aid to an injured person” (p.26). The judge also went on
to describe that the need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what
would be considered an exigency or emergency (Pettry, 2011). At the time, these circumstances
seemed particularly reasonable although it was unclear as to what extent police officers were able
to act without a warrant after the emergency was over. According to Hoover (2006), this
ambiguity is what makes the exigent circumstances exception the most problematic exception for
police officers.
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND VEHILCE EXCEPTION
4
The case of Michigan v. Tyler [1978] established that once the exigent circumstances have
been extinguished and the purpose of the scene’s examination has evolved, the warrant
requirement of the Fourth Amendment is reestablished (Hoover, 2006). This reassured the
protection of the Fourth Amendment and shortly after, the circumstances protected under this
exception began to expand.
In 1988, United States v. Rengifo (1988) added that,
“exigent circumstances occur when a reasonable officer could believe that to delay acting to
obtain a warrant would, in all likelihood, permanently frustrate an important police
objective, such as to prevent the destruction of evidence relating to criminal activity or to
secure an arrest before a suspect can commit further serious harm” (Pettry, 2012, p.27).
This gave more of a rise to police authority. It enabled police officers to not only be excused of
the search warrant requirement when they felt necessary to protect a life or avoid serious injury,
but also whenever they felt that evidence would be destroyed, or that making a sudden arrest
would prevent further harm from happening. Although this rise in authority became problematic,
the case of United States v Duschi [1990] introduced the idea that it is law enforcement which
creates the exigency (Pettry, 2012).
According to Pettry (2012), the defense in United States v Duschi [1990] argued that
when it is known to the criminal that the officer is aware of their presence, it causes them to want
to flee the scene or also possibly destroy any evidence. Thereafter, in the decision of United
States v Chambers [2005] suggested that, “for a warrantless search to stand, law enforcement
officers must be responding to an unanticipated exigency rather than simply creating the
exigency for themselves” (Pettry, 2012, p.29). This ruling concerned the courts.
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND VEHILCE EXCEPTION
5
Due to an unwarranted amount of tests and evaluations, the courts felt that taking on
approaches to evaluate the officer’s actions and decisions would be unreasonable (Pettry, 2012).
Fortunately, this dilemma was recently settled. The decision of Kentucky v. King [2010] provided
a new focus of the court’s analysis of whether the police officer is warranted in the right to claim
exigent circumstances (Pettry, 2012). According to Pettry (2012), the new focus would be on
whether the officer violated the Fourth Amendment, or threatened to do so, prior to forcing entry.
This cleared the air and reassured that police officers no longer have to guess as to whether they
impermissibly created exigent circumstances (Pettry, 2012). The legal standard set forth by the
exigent circumstances exception enables officers to make rapid decisions as to whether they
should enter any residence to resolve an emergency situation.
Motor Vehicle Exception
The case of Carroll v. United States [1925] established the motor vehicle exception to the
search warrant requirement (Hendrie, 2005). In this case, two undercover agents had been
negotiating an illegal whiskey purchase from the two defendants [Carroll and Kiro], although the
actual sale was never effectuated. One week after the unconsummated negotiation, the agents
observed the defendants driving from Grand Rapids to Detroit in the same vehicle that they had
used when pursuing the negotiations. After more than two months, the agents once again
witnessed the two defendants driving in the same vehicle although this time from Detroit back to
Grand Rapids. This time around, the agents had been made aware that the Detroit area was in
fact, “an active center for bringing illegal liquor into the United States”, which led the agents to
believe that Kiro and Carroll might have been smuggling illegal liquor (Hendrie, 2005, p.23).
Under this impression, the two agents stopped the vehicle and conducted a warrantless search
that led them to find illegal liquor within the upholstery of the seats. Due to the clear probable
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND VEHILCE EXCEPTION
6
cause that the agents had prior to conducting the search, the warrantless motor vehicle search was
approved by the United States Supreme Court and the evidence was thereby admissible in court
(Hendrie, 2005).
According to Hendrie (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the officers had justification
for the search and seizure due to the circumstances and facts within their knowledge that led
them to believe that illegal liquor was being transported in the vehicle. The ruling that
established the motor vehicle exception specifically stated that,
“If an officer has probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located in a
motor vehicle, he may search the area of the vehicle he reasonably believes contains that
evidence without a search warrant to the same degree as if he had a warrant” (Hendrie,
2005, p.22).
This decision by the Supreme Court did not leave any room for misperception as for the scope of
the search being that it specifies the areas that may be searched must be reasonably believed to
contain evidence. Therefore, if an officer in the middle of a warrantless search has discovered
contraband or other criminal evidence in the passenger compartment of a vehicle, it would be
reasonable for the officer to suspect that there could also be other evidence or contraband in the
trunk of the vehicle (Hendrie, 2005).
The case of Commonwealth v. Moses (1990) validated the vehicle exception rule when
the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the officer had enough probable cause to believe
that drugs or weapons could be in the trunk of the vehicle after discovering illegal drugs and a
gun in the passenger compartment of the vehicle during a frisk for weapons (Hendrie, 2005).
Prior to the establishment of the motor vehicle exception, it would not have been permissible for
the officer to frisk the trunk of a vehicle. Now, with validated probable cause, it may be
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND VEHILCE EXCEPTION
7
permitted and justifiable in court (Hendrie, 2005). This allows for an officer to justifiably
conduct a more thorough search of a vehicle with less stress of strict power limitations by the
Fourth Amendment. However, it is important that the officers do realize with certainty that the
scope of the search is strictly limited to the specific areas that the officer has probable cause to
search. If the officer is not precise enough in their certainty or amount of probable cause, the
evidence may be subjected to rebuttal when presented before the court.
The case of Wimberly v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County [1976] demonstrated
the idea that an officer’s search is not always worthy of protection by the motor vehicle exception
(Hendrie, 2005). The court’s ruling of this case suggested that the amount of probable cause that
the officer claimed to have in order to search the trunk of the vehicle was only enough probable
cause to indicate that the defendants in the vehicle were only casual users of marijuana.
Therefore, the court determined that it was not reasonable for the officer to believe that
additional contraband would be hidden in the trunk by casual drug users. Because of this
determination by the court, the evidence found in the trunk was suppressed.
According to Hendrie (2005), the Wimberly [1976] decision represents only a minority of
courts. Habitually, if an officer discovers physical evidence of drugs in the passenger
compartment of a vehicle, even if it is only in the amount of personal use, it would be enough to
justify the officer’s probable cause in suspecting there to be additional drugs in the trunk of that
vehicle (Hendrie 2005). However, it does not always have to be physical evidence of drugs that
can justify an officer’s probable cause to search the trunk of a vehicle.
According to Hendrie (2005), the odor of burnt marijuana is enough to establish probable
cause to search the trunk of a vehicle as long as it is corroborated with any other evidence to
justify the officer’s suspicion. This corroborating evidence is required to be credible by the
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND VEHILCE EXCEPTION
8
officer in order to be justifiable in court. Corroborating evidence, however, is not required if the
odor detected by the officer is of fresh, unburned marijuana. The officer is protected by the motor
vehicle exception and may justifiably search the trunk of a vehicle under this circumstance due to
the predictable inference that the fresh, unburned marijuana is for distributing purposes and that
there is a possibility of discovering more marijuana in the trunk of the vehicle (Hendrie, 2005).
The ruling of the Supreme Court in Wyoming v Houghton [1999] supported the idea that
the motor vehicle exception not only permits officers to search the vehicle and its trunk but also
any containers found in the vehicle that could contain the evidence or contraband that is the
object of the search (Hendrie, 2005). It is also not of any importance as to who the owner of the
item is. In Wyoming v. Houghton [1999], the officer found drugs and paraphernalia inside a purse
that belonged to a passenger of the vehicle. This search was ruled lawful and the probable cause
was justifiable based on the evidence that the driver admitted to being a drug user and drug
paraphernalia had been uncovered on the driver’s person (Hendrie, 2005).
According to Hendrie (2005), the search of the motor vehicle and the containers inside of
it could be conducted hours and even days after the vehicle is seized. This is permissible because
the general rule of the motor vehicle exception does not require that there be an emergency
(Hendrie, 2005). In United States v. Johns [1985], the Supreme Court ruled that conducting a
warrantless search of packages that had been confiscated from a vehicle three days prior to the
search was justifiably lawful. The search was considered to be lawful with reason that the officer
was authorized to seize the packages and could have searched them immediately with protection
from the motor vehicle exception (Hendrie 2005).
The motor vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement is not only limited to
ordinary automobiles. According to Hendrie (2005), “in addition to automobiles and motor
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND VEHILCE EXCEPTION
9
homes, courts have applied the motor vehicle exception to trucks, trailers pulled by trucks, boats,
house boats, airplanes, and even the sleeping compartments of trains” (pg. 28). In 1985, the
motor vehicle exception was applied to a motor home by the Supreme Court in California v.
Carney [1985] due to the ruling that the motor home was a readily movable motor vehicle
(Hendrie, 2005). If the motor home had not been readily moveable, the motor vehicle exception
would have not applied. The court went on to specify that if a motor home is situated in a way
that indicates it is being used as a residence such as having it elevated on blocks or connected to
utilities, it is then considered a dwelling and the motor vehicle exception may no longer apply
(Hendrie, 2005).
Conclusion
Giving rise to the authority of police officers in making exceptions to the search warrant
requirement enables them to intervene in many situations that they may have not considered in
doing so previously. This introduction of exceptions has led to a unique variation in rulings of
multiple court cases as well as clarification to the ample uncertainty in circumstantial situations.
It is crucial that officers thoroughly understands the authority that is provided to them by the
specified exceptions. So long as the officer recognizes their allotted supremacies and justifiably
follows the appropriate procedures, the officer may be subjected to these exceptions when
making swift decisions in relation to search procedure under the chaotic and tense situations that
they face on a daily bases.
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND VEHILCE EXCEPTION
10
References
California v. Carney. 471 U.S. 386 (1985).
Carroll v. United States. 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
Commonwealth v. Moses. 557 N.E.2d 14, 19 (1990).
Hendrie, E. (2005). The motor vehicle exception. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 22(10).
Hoover, L. (2006). Law enforcement response at a crisis scene: protecting lives and preserving
the admissibility of evidence. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 30.
Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978).
Pettry, M. (2011). The emergency aid exception to the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement.
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 26.
Pettry, M. (2012). The exigent circumstances exception after kentucky v.king. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin 27(7).
U.S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment.
United States v. Chambers. 395 F.3d, 563, 566 (6th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Duschi. 906 F.2d 1278, 1284 (8th Cir. 1990).
United States v. Johns. 469 U.S. 478 (1985).
United States v. Rengifo. 858 F.2d 800, 805 (1st Cir. 1988).
Wayne v. United States. 318 F.2d 205, 212; 115 U.S. App.D.C. 234, 241 (D.C. Cir. 1963).
Wimberly v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County. 547 P.2d 417 (1976).
Wyoming v. Houghton. 526 U.S. 295 (1999).