Maryland v. Dyson
Decision Date | 21 June 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 98-1062.,98-1062. |
Citation | 527 U.S. 465 |
Parties | MARYLAND v. DYSON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
In this case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a search warrant before searching a vehicle which they have probable cause to believe contains illegal drugs. Because this holding rests upon an incorrect interpretation of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse.
At 11 a.m. on the morning of July 2, 1996, a St. Mary's County> (Maryland) Sheriff's Deputy received a tip from a reliable confidential informant that respondent had gone to New York to buy drugs, and would be returning to Maryland in a rented red Toyota, license number DDY 787, later that day with a large quantity of cocaine. The deputy investigated the tip and found that the license number given to him by the informant belonged to a red Toyota Corolla that had been rented to respondent, who was a known drug dealer in St. Mary's County. When respondent returned to St. Mary's County in the rented car at 1 a.m. on July 3, the deputies stopped and searched the vehicle, finding 23 grams of crack cocaine in a duffel bag in the trunk. Respondent was arrested, tried, and convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. He appealed, arguing that the trial court had erroneously denied his motion to suppress the cocaine on the alternative grounds that the police lacked probable cause, or that even if there was probable cause, the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment because there was sufficient time after the informant's tip to obtain a warrant.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed, 122 Md. App. 413, 712 A. 2d 573 (1998), holding that in order for the automobile exception to the warrant requirement to apply, there must not only be probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is contained in the automobile, but also a separate finding of exigency precluding the police from obtaining a warrant. Id., at 424, 712 A. 2d, at 578. Applying this rule to the facts of the case, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that although there was "abundant probable cause," the search violated the Fourth Amendment because there was no exigency that prevented or even made it significantly difficult for the police to obtain a search warrant. Id., at 426, 712 A. 2d, at 579. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied certiorari. 351 Md. 287, 718 A. 2d 235 (1998). We grant certiorari and now reverse.
The Fourth Amendment generally requires police to secure a warrant before conducting a search. California v. Carney, 471 U. S. 386, 390-391 (1985). As we recognized nearly 75 years ago in Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 153 (1925), there is an exception to this requirement for searches of vehicles. And under our established precedent, the "automobile exception" has no separate exigency requirement. We made this clear in United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 809 (1982), when we said that in cases where there was probable cause to search a vehicle "a search is not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Arturo D.
...768), or if probable cause exists to believe the car contains evidence of a crime or contraband (Maryland v. Dyson (1999) 527 U.S. 465, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (per curiam); Carroll v. United States (1925) 267 U.S. 132, 153, 155-156, 45 S.Ct. 280, 285-86, 69 L.Ed. 543); subject to c......
-
United States v. Hernandez-Mieses
...not have a separate exigency requirement ...." Robinson v. Cook, 706 F.3d 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999) ; Labron, 518 U.S. at 940, 116 S.Ct. 2485 ). In Robinson, the First Circuit held that the police's seizure of......
-
United States v. Idleman
...Moreover, it is well-established that "the 'automobile exception' has no separate exigency requirement." Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 2014 (1999). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonab......
-
Com. v. Perry
...clear that the automobile exception under federal law does not have a separate exigency requirement. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466-67, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999)(the "automobile exception" has no separate exigency requirement); Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940, 1......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...the existence of exigent circumstances in addition to probable cause in order to allow police to search the vehicle. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L. Ed. 2d 442 (1999). Colorado v. Bannister, supra ; State v. Guzman, 959 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The totality......
-
C3 Warrantless Searches
...practical to wait to get search warrant? or Is vehicle in public place [Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (1999)(parked); Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999)(driving); accord, Lejune, 276 Ga. 179, 576 SE2d 888 (2003) (apartment parking lot not public place), but see Massa, 273 Ga. App. 596,......
-
C3 Warrantless Searches
...practical to wait to get search warrant? or Is vehicle in public place [Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (1999)(parked); Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999)(driving); accord, Lejune, 276 Ga. 179, 576 SE2d 888 (2003) (apartment parking lot not public place), but see Massa, 273 Ga. App. 596,......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...the existence of exigent circumstances in addition to probable cause in order to allow police to search the vehicle. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L. Ed. 2d 442 (1999). Colorado v. Bannister, supra ; State v. Guzman, 959 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The totality......