 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Powell11/20/1979
t and the seizure of the items found there cannot, unlike the spoon, be justified under the "plain view" doctrine, we nevertheless hold that these warrantless intrusions were not unreasonable under the circumstances present.
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), is generally recognized as the seminal case for the so-called "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement. See Laskey, Mistating The Exigency Rule: The Supreme Court v. The Exigency Requirement In Warrantless Automobile Searches, 28 Syracuse L. Rev. 981 (1977); Williamson, The Supreme Court, Warrantless Searches, And Exigent Circumstances, 31 Okla. L. Rev. 110 (1978). Carroll, decided during the Prohibition Era, held that a warrantless search of an automobile and the seizure therein of liquor was not repugnant to the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, provided that the seizing officer had probable cause to believe that the suspect automobile was illegally transporting contraband liquor. 267 U.S. 153-56. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged that, for constitutional purposes, there exists
a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
Id. at 153. See also Arkansas v. Sanders, U.S. , 99 S. Ct. 2586, 2591 (1979); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12-13 (1977); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 367-69 (1976); Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (1974) (plurality opinion); Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441-42 (1973); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 549-64 (1971); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 50-52 (1970).
Here, the search in question took place on a public thoroughfare while the subject automobile was in actual transit, and it was closely tied in time and place to the point of arrest. Moreover, the scope of the search was narrowly confined to an area immediately surrounding the spot where the first incriminating object was seized. We feel that, given these facts, the search and seizure involved did not exceed the bounds permitted by the Hawaii and United States Constitutions. The fact that the searching officer was aided by a flashlight in his discovery of the syringe and the vial does not, in this case, undermine the reasonableness of his actions. See State v. Hanawahine, 50 Haw. 461, 465-66, 443 P.2d 149, 152-53 (1968).
Having determined the initial stop of appellee's vehicle to be proper and the subsequent search and seizure to be reasonable, the judgment of the lower court is hereby reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|