NCJ Number
150004
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 84 Issue: 3 Dated: (Fall 1993) Pages: 429-461
Date Published
1993
Length
33 pages
Annotation
This article discusses why three cases -- United States v. Robinson (1973), New York v. Belton (1981), and California v. Acevedo (1991) -- were wrongly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court according to the Court's logic and precedents.
Abstract
In United States v. Robinson, the Court held that a warrantless search incident to any custodial arrest may be a "full body search," including a search of any containers in the suspect's possession. In New York v. Belton, the Court held that a warrantless search incident to arrest of an occupant of an automobile extends to all containers in the passenger compartment; and in California v. Acevedo, the Court held that warrantless automobile searches may extend to all containers found in the automobile searched. The author argues that these decisions are inconsistent with the Court's oft-advanced claim that search warrants are ordinarily "required" subject to a "few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." He further considers how these decisions will lead to the abandonment of the search warrant requirement for all searches conducted out of doors and will lead to the establishment of a "two model" approach to the Fourth Amendment, with warrants required for searches of structures but not of other places. The article concludes with a model statute that captures this new development in a succinct and comprehensible form. This formulation will show that the Court has, apparently inadvertently, presented itself with an opportunity to render Fourth Amendment law clearer and more straightforward than at any time since the "criminal procedure revolution" began. 162 footnotes