10 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. CA6: Clerk issued arrest warrant without judicial authority; not unreasonable unless no PC

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallMay 15, 2016

    In case after case, courts ask not whether the police had a valid arrest warrant but whether the seizure was “reasonable.” See, e.g., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 414-24, 96 S. Ct. 820, 46 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1976); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 155-56, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, T.D. 3686 (1925); Boykin v. Van Buren Township, 479 F.3d 444, 449-50 (6th Cir. 2007); Thacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244, 251, 255-57 (6th Cir. 2003).That means arrests are “reasonable” when the officer had “probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.”

  2. Carroll v. U.S Case Brief

    Kentucky Justice & Public Safety CabinetJuly 19, 2001

    Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280 (1925)FACTS: On September 29, 1921, undercover prohibition agents met with Carroll in an apartment in Grand Rapids, for the purpose of buying illegal whiskey. Carroll left in order to get the whiskey.

  3. SCOTUS rejects warrantless cellphone location tracking in Carpenter v. United States

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJune 22, 2018

    The analysis regarding which expectations of privacy are entitled to protection is informed by historical understandings “of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when [the Fourth Amendment] was adopted.” Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 149. These Founding-era understandings continue to inform this Court when applying the Fourth Amendment to innovations in surveillance tools.

  4. What’s On Their Minds: How Far Can the Unmistakable Smell of Pot Take A Traffic Stop and Auto Search? State of Ohio v. Edwin A. Vega.

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanJune 19, 2018

    The trial court granted the motion, finding that Vega was unlawfully detained for the 38 minutes after the initial stop and search of his vehicle. The state appealed.The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision.Read the oral argument preview of the case here.Key Precedent Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (“The right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”)Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution (“The right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated…”)Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (Established the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches. Under this exception, an automobile may be searched without a warrant if the law enforcement officer has reasonable or probable cause.)

  5. Oral Argument Preview: How Far Can the Unmistakable Smell of Pot Take A Traffic Stop and Auto Search? State of Ohio v. Edwin A. Vega

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanJune 4, 2018

    Therefore, Judge Stewart found there was probable cause to open the envelopes. Judge Stewart also found that the amount of time that passed was reasonable and any delay in obtaining the services of a drug-sniffing dog was irrelevant.The State brought this jurisdictional appeal.Votes to Accept the Case*Yes: Justices O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, and DeWineNo: Chief Justice O’Connor*Then-Justice O’Neill not participatingKey Statutes and PrecedentFourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (“The right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”)Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution (“The right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated…”)Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (Established the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches. Under this exception, an automobile may be searched without a warrant if the law enforcement officer has reasonable or probable cause.)

  6. Merit Decision: A Fourth Amendment Workout. State v. Banks-Harvey.

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanFebruary 10, 2018

    He would find that the Highway Patrol inventory search policy as described by Trooper Keener violated the Fourth Amendment.Read the oral argument preview of the case here, and an analysis of the argument here.Key PrecedentFourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.)Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (An automobile may be searched without a warrant if the law enforcement officer has reasonable or probable cause.)Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (“Searches conducted without warrants have been held unlawful ‘notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause,’ for the Constitution requires ‘that the deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer . . . be interposed between the citizen and the police . . . .’”(Citations omitted))Athens v. Wolf, 38 Ohio St.2d 237 (1974) (The state holds the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a search falls within the defined exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant.)

  7. Immigration Fact and Fiction for the U.S. Employer: More on CBP Searching Electronic Devices – What is Left of the Fourth Amendment?

    Proskauer Rose LLPDavid GrunblattApril 11, 2017

    Well, what if CBP confiscates an I-Phone from an individual about to depart the United States, at an airport, without a warrant, and the individual is convicted of criminal charges partially based upon information obtained from that I-Phone. That is the question raised in U.S. v. Hamza Kolsuz in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.The Border Search Exception We discussed in a prior blog post how CBP relies on the “Border Search Exception” cited in Carroll v. United States 267 U.S. 132 (1925) concluding that it is “reasonable” to conduct such border searches without a warrant given national security interests. In addition, individuals have a lesser expectation of privacy when they seek entry into the United States at a port of entry.

  8. Odor of Marijuana Grounds for Vehicle Search

    Pessin Katz Law, P.A.Aiden SmithMarch 2, 2017

    Officers could not conduct warrantless searches of their vehicles because a search warrant cannot be issued for civil offenses. A warrantless search is permissible only where reasonable.Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) and other cases do not answer the question of whether it is reasonable for an officer to search for items, the possession of which is not criminal. Whether a search is reasonable does not depend on the Maryland General Assembly’s intent in decriminalizing possession of a small amount of marijuana.

  9. The automobile exception is 92 years old today

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallMarch 2, 2017

    Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)

  10. Capital Defense Weekly, April 5, 1999

    Capital Defense NewsletterApril 5, 1999

    47J v. Acton,515 U.S. 646, 652—653. This Court has concluded that the Framers would have regarded as reasonable the warrantless search of a car that police had probable cause to believe contained contraband, Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, as well as the warrantless search of containers within the automobile, United States v. Ross,456 U.S. 798. Neither Ross nor the historical evidence it relied upon admits of a distinction based on ownership.