California v. Acevedo Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

California v. Acevedo Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... California v. Acevedo | 500 U.S. 565 (1991) The automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement generally allows a police officer to conduct a warrantless search of someone’s car if the officer has probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime is inside. But can this exception be used to bypass the warrant requirement in more complicated situations? In California versus Acevedo, the United States Supreme Court considered the scope of the automobile exception as it applies to closed containers placed in cars. Police officers in Santa Ana, California, intercepted a package containing bundles of marijuana. They had the package delivered to its recipient, and waited outside his apartment. While one officer left to go get a search warrant, Charles Acevedo arrived and went inside the apartment. After ten minutes, Acevedo left the apartment carrying a bag that was about the size of one of the marijuana bundles. Acevedo walked to his car in the parking lot, placed the bag in the trunk, and drove away. Without a warrant, the officers stopped Acevedo’s car, opened the bag in his trunk, and found marijuana inside. The officers arrested Acevedo, and a state prosecutor later charged him with possession of marijuana for sale. Acevedo filed a pretrial motion to suppress, contending that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by opening his bag without a warrant. The state trial court denied the motion after concluding that the officers had authority to open the bag pursuant to the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception. Acevedo pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The California Court of Appeal reversed Acevedo’s conviction, holding that the officers engaged in an unconstitutional search. That court concluded that, based on United States versus Chadwick and Arkansas versus Sanders, the automobile exception didn’t apply because the officers lacked probable cause to search Acevedo’s car generally, as opposed to his bag in particular. After the California Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for review, the State filed a cert petition with the United States Supreme Court, requesting that it reconsider Chadwick and Sanders. The Court agreed to do so. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/califor... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/califor... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries