NCJ Number
80197
Date Published
Unknown
Length
0 pages
Annotation
This discussion explains how to analyze a police search-seizure incident according to the Carroll doctrine, which permits warrantless automobile searches, and according to the search incident law, it discusses what the Carroll doctrine is and is not and describes special problems relating to inventory searches.
Abstract
The Carroll doctrine and the search incident to lawful arrest doctrine overlap in certain instances, but they are distinct doctrines that cannot be combined. A case of a warrantless search that held up under both doctrines is Peterson v. State of Maryland in which police conducted a warrantless search of two cars used for selling narcotics. The analysis of the case must consider two questions: (1) Was there a warrantless arrest? (2) Under the Carroll doctrine, was there probable cause and exigency? In this case, these elements were present. The case of Martin v. State of Maryland is described to illustrate one that did not hold up on either doctrine. Other cases discussed to illustrate the analytical technique are Howell v. State of Maryland and Soles v. State of Maryland. The explanation of what constitutes the Carroll doctrine and what does not covers the law person's definition of an automobile and the legal definition. Six different analyses of constitutional law are presented, with U.S. Supreme Court cases from each type, to illustrate that the Carroll doctrine does not apply to all cases involving automobiles. These analyses include the search incident to lawful arrest, so-called automobile cases, hot pursuit, stop and frisk, plain view doctrine, and consent. The discussion also considers whether search of a suitcase fits under either doctrine. It is concluded that the suitcase should be treated more like a car than a house, since it has the characteristics of mobility. Finally, it is observed that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, in some cases, inventory searches may be valid.