California v. Acevedo: The Walls Close in on the Warrant Requirement

• NCJ Number: 138884
• Journal: American Criminal Law Review Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Dated: (Summer 1992) Pages: 1103-1177
• Author(s): J J Tomkovicz
• Date Published: 1992
• Length: 75 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article examines the debate over the legitimacy of the search warrant requirement and considers the precedential, textual, historical, policy, and symbolic arguments; the California v. Acevedo (1991) U.S. Supreme Court case is analyzed to show that the Court is on the brink of "clarifying" Fourth Amendment law at the expense of the warrant requirement.

Abstract

Since the 1960's large majorities of the U.S. Supreme Court had consistently held that "warrantless searches are per se unreasonable," subject to exceptions. In California v. Acevedo, a case that ostensibly focused on a relatively narrow issue, the Court apparently shows signs of changing its attitude toward the warrant requirement. "Acevedo" focused on whether a warrant is needed to search when probable cause is focused solely upon a particular container located within a vehicle. In United States v. Chadwick (1977), the Court held that the general warrant requirement protects private repositories. In Arkansas v. Sanders (1979), the court deemed unreasonable the warrantless search of a suitcase located in the trunk of a vehicle. Under similar circumstances, however, the "Acevedo" Court upheld the warrantless search of a private repository in a vehicle, holding that the Court's decision in "Ross," which provides for the warrantless search of vehicles, rejected "Chadwick's" distinction between containers and cars. The "Acevedo" Court shows clear indications of its discontent with the conclusion that private repositories found in public places are sheltered by the rule that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable. The only conclusions that justify the elimination of "Sanders" are that the warrant rule is unsound or that it has no application outside the home. The current members of the Court owe to their predecessors, the precedents, the Fourth Amendment, and the American people an honest acknowledgment of the choices they are making and of how these choices support the dismantlement of the warrant rule. 392 footnotes