Talk:Motor vehicle exception

Citation needed?

The exception is based on the idea that there is a lower expectation of privacy in motor vehicles due to the regulations they operate.

Says who? Says what case law? Is a citation needed? I think so. The statement is a claim that should be backed up with evidence. --156.99.105.188 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why No Objections and Inconsistencies Mentioned?

I am curious why there are no exceptions raised in the description of this new found (1920's) power. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution does not specify differences in the level of its protections based on whether the thing to be searched is a person, house, paper, or effect. Nowhere does it state in the Amendment that an effect is subject to less protection under the 4th Amendment.

It also does not state anything about mobility. Surely when the Bill of Rights were written there were horses, horse drawn carriages, and sea fairing ships. If the 4th Amendment granted less protection for methods of transportation why is it not spelled out in the Amendment?

The motor vehicle exception is bad law, the opinion of a few ignorant judges serving policy ends over protecting Constitutional rights. How can any reasonable person see it differently? The 4th Amendment is very explicit.

This stinks as much as that Wickard v Filburn court case.72.209.12.250 (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article req update

exception removed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.106.3 (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC) The Texas v. White case has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment or the motor vehicles exception as it was decided in 1869. It should be removed.[reply]

Remove Gant reference

The issue decided in Gant -- whether officers may search a vehicle "incident to arrest" -- is tertiary at best to the automobile exception. Gant only placed a limitation on the ability of law enforcement to search a vehicle "incident to arrest," a concept unto itself which technically has never been part of the motor vehicle exception. Gant did not alter the motor vehicle exception by requiring a warrant to search. A warrant has always been required to search a vehicle, unless the motor vehicle exception applies. The motor vehicle exception -- allowing warrantless search IF there is probable cause that contraband and/or evidence of the crime is in the vehicle, AND the vehicle is readily mobile -- is still alive and well, and may still support searches attendant -- but not incident -- to arrest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.244.87 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States vs Ludwig

The case from the tenth circuit as cited does not contain the quote used. This may be a case of ambiguity. Arartax (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quote used in the article appears at the bottom of page 1528.^[1] Arllaw (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "US v. Ludwig, 10 F. 3d 1523, 1528 (1993)". ("If police have probable cause to search a car, they need not get a search warrant first even if they have time and opportunity. United States v. Crabb, 952 F.2d 1245, 1246 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1981, 118 L.Ed.2d 579 (1992).")

[1] "US v. Ludwig, 10 F. 3d 1523, 1528 (1993)". ("If police have probable cause to search a car, they need not get a search warrant first even if they have time and opportunity. United States v. Crabb, 952 F.2d 1245, 1246 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1981, 118 L.Ed.2d 579 (1992).")

[1]