stating that "a warrantless search of an automobile, based upon probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained evidence of crime in light of an exigency arising out of the likely disappearance of the vehicle, [does] not contravene the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "a warrantless search of an automobile, based upon probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained evidence of crime in light of an exigency arising out of the likely disappearance of the vehicle, [does] not contravene the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment"
- stating that “ ‘searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment-subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions’ ”
- holding that “the police may search an automobile and the containers within it where 5 they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained”
- holding that, under the automobile exception, officers may search inside a closed container that is in a vehicle if they have probable cause to search the container, even if they “lack probable cause to search the entire car”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by State v. Savva, 159 Vt. 75 (1992)
We reject the bright-line tests of Ross and Acevedo here, as we rejected the bright-line test of Oliver in Kirchoff 156 Vt. at 10, 587 A.2d at 995, because these tests fail “to do justice to the values underlying Article 11.
Limited by United States v. Edward Lee Donnes, 947 F.2d 1430 (1991)
111 S.Ct. at 1991, it expressly limited its holding to searches pursuant to the automobile exception.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Robey v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 4th 1218 (2013)
However, in bringing all containers found in cars within the ambit of the automobile exception, Acevedo expressly limited its holding to automobile searches and did not disturb the general rule that a warrant is required to search a lawfully seized container.
Distinguished by State v. Betz, 815 So. 2d 627 (2002)
As Acevedo is inapposite here, the United States Supreme Court opinion most applicable to the facts before us is the Ross decision.
The opinion
Justice White,
dissenting.
Agreeing as I do with most of Justice Stevens’ opinion and with the result he reaches, I dissent and would affirm the judgment below.