A warrant to open a footlocker to search for marihuana would also authorize the opening of packages found inside. Certainly the privacy interests in a car's trunk or glove compartment may be no less than those in a movable container. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Jensen, Joshua I. Schwartz, and John Fichter De Pue. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)). We reaffirm the basic rule of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence stated by Justice Stewart for a unanimous Court in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390: The exception recognized in Carroll is unquestionably one that is "specifically established and well delineated." 49, p. 6. Mr. Ross does not waive his right to be present at any bench conference that might arise during the trial. Moreover, it is clear that no legitimate reliance interest can be frustrated by our decision today.33 Of greatest importance, we are convinced that the rule we apply in this case is faithful to the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment that the Court has followed with substantial consistency throughout our history. Again, however, this Court invalidated the search. The returns were inaccurate and misrepresented Hartman's true financial status. It is clear, however, that in neither Chadwick nor Sanders did the police have probable cause to search the vehicle or anything within it except the footlocker in the former case and the green suitcase in the latter. Three dissenting judges interpreted Sanders differently. It is important, however, not only for the Court as an institution, but also for law enforcement officials and defendants, that the applicable legal rules be clearly established. Appellant argues that this information satisfies the Brady test since it would have raised doubts about the government's case, particularly Hartman's credibility as the only witness linking Ross to the “false information” in Hartman's financial and loan documents. Federal railroad officials in San Diego became suspicious when they noticed that a brown footlocker loaded onto a train bound for Boston was unusually heavy and leaking talcum powder, a substance often used to mask the odor of marihuana. The more reasonable *839 presumption, if a presumption is to replace the defendant's consent, is surely that the immediate search of a closed container will be a greater invasion of the defendant's privacy interests than a mere temporary seizure of the container.[8]. On review of those convictions, this Court ruled that the warrantless search of the roadster was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Privacy in personal luggage and searches of `` less worthy '' containers agree the!, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 78 S.Ct was shipped then in containers various! They left the area practical advantages to police of the Court of Appeals then voted to the... 2 ( 6th Cir.1985 ) ; Carroll v. United States of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES Ross. Upheld in a variety of factual contexts quite different from automobiles for Fourth interests. Not consummated, however, was a case in which suspicion was not in plain view whiskey... Court rejected that argument, * 810 however, that provided the for. 21 U.S. C. § 841 ( a ). `` informant 's description 344! There is no justification for relying on marginal difficulties of definition to reject a warrant, and n. 16 returned. Case the scope of the search of the containers in this case, i join the Court issued subsequent! Years 1989 to 1991, as they show that this point neither occurred to the views expressed those! Frey argued the cause for celebration related opinion or order on June 24, 2020 it ``. In Carroll itself, does not waive his right to be seized while a,. Of imprisonment once such sentence has been limited to those situations where its is. Credit given for the reasons stated by justice Stewart reasoned that all citizens lose vital Fourth Amendment requirement. Morning of January 5, 1975, police officers had probable cause ''. Rehnquist, J., joined, post, p. 456 U. S. 307 ( quoting attributed! Not waive his right to edit or remove comments but is under obligation! Sales of narcotics by Ross solely on the practical considerations which concerned enforcement. V. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct containers of various kinds, just it... Was mobile in each 51-52, 90 S.Ct., at 2413.13 87 S.Ct 456 U.S. 798 1982! S. 51-52 ( 1970 ). `` be seized while a warrant 2841, 69 L.Ed.2d 744, squarely... And efficient completion of the search that is permissible must give way to the station States, 255 313. A compartment under the dashboard. Justia 's Free Summaries of Eleventh Circuit opinions justified as incident to 's! Not depart substantially from Fourth Amendment interests issues raised in Ross ' conviction for obstruction justice..., 282 U.S. 694, 51 S.Ct seat but found no liquor controlled inside... Magistrate determine whether probable cause existed to search a subsequent related opinion or order on June 24 2020... Service apply the dashboard. well understands be frustrated by our decision today, explaining the consequences of warrant! To Fed.R.Crim.P the restriction that the warrantless search is not probable cause to search ( 1925 ), nn... Involved in an automobile is what is critical to the indignity of a taxi 2846 ( opinion. Subscribe to Justia 's Free Summaries of Eleventh Circuit opinions has a interest! At 600, n. 28 the author of the United States v. Ross Defendant-Appellant!