California v. Acevedo

In California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991), officers saw the defendant leave a known drug house with a bag similar to ones they had previously seen that contained marijuana. Based on this, the officers stopped defendant's vehicle and opened the trunk to search the bag. The Court held that, on these facts, "the police had probable cause to believe that the paper bag in the automobile's trunk contained marijuana," and such probable cause "allows a warrantless search of the paper bag" (id. at 580). It warned, however, that "the facts in the record reveal that the police did not have probable cause to believe that contraband was hidden in any other part of the automobile and a search of the entire vehicle would have been without probable cause and unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment" (id.). The Supreme Court stated that the "police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained." In that case, officers of the Santa Ana Police Department were conducting surveillance of an apartment, which they knew contained marijuana. Id. at 566-67. Acevedo drove to the apartment, entered, "stayed for about ten minutes, and reappeared carrying a brown paper bag that looked full." Id. at 567. He placed the bag in the trunk of his vehicle. Id. As he drove out of the parking lot, he was stopped by police. "They opened the trunk and the bag, and found marijuana." Id. The Supreme Court explained: The police had probable cause to believe that the paper bag in the automobile's trunk contained marijuana. That probable cause now allows a warrantless search of the paper bag. The facts in the record reveal that the police did not have probable cause to believe that contraband was hidden in any other part of the automobile and a search of the entire vehicle would have been without probable cause and unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 580. In California v. Acevedo, the authorities were tipped off that a package being shipped to the defendant may contain marijuana. The package was picked up by the defendant who took it home. Later, another person arrived and came out of the house with a backpack. The officers stopped the person, looked in the backpack, and discovered marijuana. Later, the defendant came out of the house with a brown paper bag which the officers suspected contained marijuana. After the defendant placed the bag in the trunk of his automobile and drove off, the officers stopped and detained the defendant, looked in the bag, and discovered marijuana. The defendant challenged the warrantless search of his automobile. The majority opinion discussed the case in the context of the automobile exception established in Carroll v. United States (1925), 267 U.S. 132. But it noted the difference. In Carroll, there was probable cause to search the automobile which extended to any closed containers found within. In Acevedo, there was probable cause to search the brown paper bag which was placed in the automobile, but not the rest of the automobile. It concluded: "Until today, this Court has drawn a curious line between the search of an automobile that coincidentally turns up a container and the search of a container that coincidentally turns up in an automobile. The protections of the Fourth Amendment must not turn on such coincidences." (California v. Acevedo, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 580.) Based on probable cause to believe that the bag contained contraband, it upheld the warrantless search and the conviction.