§ 13.05 Search of Containers Found in Cars
| Jurisdiction | North Carolina |
[A] Clarification of the Issue
[1] In General
The "car cases" generally involve the issue of whether the police may search an automobile without a warrant, assuming they have probable cause for the inspection. But suppose that the officers come upon a container, e.g., a suitcase, briefcase, or paper bag, during the car search. May they open it without a warrant? Or suppose that the police are validly searching the car (without a warrant) looking for a particular container that they have reason to believe contains contraband. If they find it, may they open that container without a warrant? These questions are considered here.
[2] What Is a "Container"?
For current purposes, a "container" is "any object capable of holding another object."52
Containers are not all alike. Some containers are inexpensive, such as a simple paper bag, whereas others are expensive, such as an executive's attaché case. Furthermore, people protect the contents of containers in different ways. One person with a paper bag might fold it closed, and still another might staple it shut; luggage might be unlocked, locked, or even double-locked.
Given these distinctions, the Supreme Court could have developed myriad Fourth Amendment "container" rules. Instead, it has chosen the opposite approach: Observing that "[w]hat one person may put into a suitcase, another may put into a paper bag,"53the Supreme Court has ruled that, with one significant exception, all containers will be treated alike for Fourth Amendment purposes. That is, whatever rules regarding warrants apply — they are discussed below — the Court will not treat some containers as more deserving of protection than others.
The exception to this statement is that the Fourth Amendment does not provide full protection for containers that "by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance."54 The Court's examples of such containers are a kit of burglar's tools and a gun case. In essence, if the contents of a container are in literal plain view because the container is open or transparent, a person cannot possess a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the observation of its contents. Likewise, contents are in figurative plain view if the container's "distinctive configuration . . . proclaims its contents."55Perhaps, as well — the Court has left the issue open56 — one may not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in a container the contents of which can be determined by its distinctive odor.
[B] General Rule
The rule, which did not come easily to the Court, is that containers — even those belonging to a passenger of an automobile who is not suspected of criminal activity57 — may be searched without a warrant during an otherwise lawful "automobile exception" search.58 And, if the container may be searched at the scene, it may also be seized and searched without a warrant shortly thereafter, at the police station.59
This rule applies in either of two general circumstances. First, as part of a valid warrantless car search, the police may unforeseeably come across a container. If so, they may open it without a warrant, assuming (as always60) that the container is large enough to hold the criminal evidence for which the police are searching. In these circumstances, the existence of probable cause to search the car serves to justify the warrantless container search, even though the officer conducting the search lacks information regarding that particular container.
Second, the police may have probable cause to believe that a particular container holding criminal evidence will be found in a car. In such circumstances, the police may conduct a warrantless search of the car for the container (per the automobile exception), and then open the container, also without a warrant.
On the other hand, absent exigent circumstances, consent, or as part of a search incident to arrest, the police may not open a container found outside a motor vehicle without obtaining a search warrant.
[C] Developing the Container Rules
[1] United States v. Chadwick
In United States v. Chadwick,61 Amtrak officials observed two persons load an unusually heavy footlocker onto a train. One of the suspects fit a profile used to spot drug traffickers, and the footlocker was leaking talcum powder, a substance often used to mask the odor of illegal narcotics. The railroad employees transmitted this information to federal narcotics agents.
The agents put the suspects under surveillance when they got off the train two days later. Although the agents did not have a warrant, they came with a dog trained to detect marijuana. While the footlocker was sitting on the floor in the train station, the dog signaled the presence of an illegal narcotic inside. The agents then watched as C and two other persons lifted the double-locked footlocker into the trunk of a car...
To continue reading
Request your trial