California v. Acevedo

California v. Acevedo
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 8, 1991 Decided May 30, 1991
Full case name	California v. Charles Steven Acevedo
Citations	500 U.S. 565 (more) 111 S. Ct. 1982; 114 L. Ed. 2d 619; 59 U.S.L.W. 4559
Case history
Prior	People v. Acevedo, 216 Cal.App.3d 586, 265 Cal.Rptr. 23 (App. 4th Dist. 1989)
Holding
Police, in a search extending only to a container within an automobile, may search the container without a warrant where they have probable cause to believe that it holds contraband or evidence.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Case opinions
Majority	Blackmun, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter
Concurrence	Scalia
Dissent	White
Dissent	Stevens, joined by Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) (in part)

California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which interpreted the Carroll doctrine to provide one rule to govern all automobile searches. The Court stated, "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained." The decision also overruled the distinctions in United States v. Chadwick (1977) and Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) which had previously held that, if probable cause existed to search an automobile, the police may perform a warrantless search of the automobile and the containers within it, but if the police only had probable cause to search a container in the automobile, the police first had to obtain a warrant before searching the container.

It thereby confirmed Carroll v. United States (1925), which held that a warrantless search of an automobile based upon probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained evidence of crime in the light of an exigency arising out of the vehicle's likely disappearance did not contravene the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

California v. Acevedo