Chambers v. Maroney Case Brief

Search and Seizure Case Briefs

Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975 (1970)

FACTS: On May 20, 1963, two men, each of whom displayed a firearm, robbed a service station in North Braddock, Pennsylvania. A witness to the robbery had told police the four male robbers were driving a blue station wagon, and that one was wearing a green sweater and another a trench coat. Within the hour, a station wagon fitting the description was stopped, and the four men inside were arrested. Chambers was wearing a green sweater. (There was also a trench coat in the car.) The car was driven to the police station, where it was thoroughly searched. Two handguns were found hidden in a compartment, a right glove with change inside (as had been done at the robbery), and business cards for another service station that had been robbed recently.

Chambers was eventually convicted in both robberies.

ISSUE: Was the search of the vehicle, after it had been taken to the station, lawful?

HOLDING: Yes

DISCUSSION: While the Court acknowledged that a search incident to arrest would not have been appropriate, the Court stated that the theory of a Carroll vehicle exception search is a totally different premise on which to base a search. Based on the facts, the vehicle could have been searched at the scene of the original arrest, and as such, there was no practical difference in searching the car at the station. The Court held that “for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, there is a constitutional difference between houses and cars.”