Robbins v. California

The Court held that an investigative traffic stop, made after a license plate check showed the registered owner's license was revoked, is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the officer lacks information negating the inference that the owner is driving.· AI-written

In a Fourth Amendment search and seizure dispute over a warrantless search of a vehicle parked a few feet from a house, the Court ruled that the automobile exception does not apply to vehicles parked within a home or its curtilage.· AI-written

The Court held that drivers of rental cars have rights protecting them from unconstitutional searches by police, even if the drivers are not listed on the rental agreement.

In a 6–3 opinion, the Court held that officers may not extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff unrelated to the original purpose of the stop.

The Court delivered its ruling on December 15, 2014.

The Court held that a 911 call reporting a recklessly driving pickup truck was reliable, and that officers did not need to personally observe criminal activity before conducting a traffic stop based on it.· AI-written

The court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The Court held that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule, so evidence found in such searches may not be excluded from trial.· AI-written

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires officers to show an actual and continuing threat to their safety from an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence of the crime of arrest, to justify a warrantless vehicle search incident to arrest after occupants are secured.· AI-written

The Court held, by unanimous decision, that police may conduct a Terry-stop patdown of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided that the police reasonably suspect that the passenger is armed and dangerous.

The Court held that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver.

The Court ruled for the deputy in a qualified immunity and excessive force suit by a motorist paralyzed after being run off the road in a chase, finding his actions objectively reasonable because videotape showed the motorist endangered public safety.· AI-written

The Court held that the use of a drug-sniffing police dog during a routine traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, even if the initial infraction is unrelated to drug offenses.

The Court held that when a police officer makes a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile's occupant, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the officer to search the vehicle's passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of arrest.

The Court held that customs agents may remove the gas tank from a vehicle crossing the international border in an effort to look for contraband.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits the police to use a roadblock to investigate a traffic incident.

The Court unanimously upheld the arrest of three passengers in an automobile where drugs were found.

The Court held that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the subject is arrested for driving without a seatbelt.

The Court held, 6–3, that police may not conduct vehicle searches, specifically ones involving drug-sniffing police dogs, at a checkpoint or roadblock without reasonable suspicion.

The Court held that, absent exigency, a warrantless search of a passenger's container capable of holding the object of a search supported by probable cause did not violate the Fourth Amendment, being justified under the automobile exception.· AI-written

The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from further searching a vehicle which was stopped for a minor traffic offense once the officer has written a citation for the offense.

The Court held that officers could order passengers out of a car during a traffic stop, extending Pennsylvania v. Mimms.

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car.

"declared that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop."

The Court created an exclusionary rule exception, allowing evidence from a warrantless search to be valid when a police record wrongly showed an outstanding warrant because of a court clerk's negligence.· AI-written

The Court overturned a per se rule imposed by the Florida Supreme Court that held consensual searches of passengers on buses were always unreasonable.

The Court held that police may search an automobile and containers within it when they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is inside, and it overruled earlier precedents that required a warrant for containers alone.· AI-written

The Court held that police sobriety checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonable search and seizure, and so were constitutional under the federal Constitution.· AI-written

The majority opinion ruled that anonymous tips can provide reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop provided that police can factually verify the circumstances asserted by the tip.

The Court held that it would not be a violation of the Fourth Amendment for state police departments to allow officers conducting an inventory search discretion in which closed containers they choose to open.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a State from proving charges with the evidence discovered during an inventory search.

The Court held that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment when police look for a vehicle identification numbers after they have developed reasonable suspicion.

The Court held that a motor home was subject to the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the motor home was readily movable.

The Court held that a three-day delay in searching a motor vehicle under government control did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Court extended Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with reasonable suspicion.

The court was asked to decide if a legal warrantless search of an automobile allows closed containers found in the vehicle (specifically, in the trunk) to be searched as well.

The Court held that when a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.

The court held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of personal luggage merely because it was located in an automobile lawfully stopped by the police, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception.

The Court held that police may not stop motorists without any reasonable suspicion to suspect crime or illegal activity to check their driver's license and auto registration.

In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, a defendant must demonstrate that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place or belonging that is subjected to a search.

The Court held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception.

The Court allowed the United States Border Patrol to set up permanent or fixed checkpoints on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border and that the checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Court elaborated on the community caretaking doctrine, ruling that police acting in that role may inventory cars they have seized without conducting an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.· AI-written

The Court decided that a warrantless arrest in public and consenting to a vehicle search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment prevented Border Patrol officers from conducting warrantless, suspicionless searches of private vehicles removed from the border or its functional equivalent.

The Supreme Court determined it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a roving patrol car to stop a vehicle solely on the basis of the driver appearing to be of Mexican descent.

The United States Supreme Court held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment."

The Court held that the search of an automobile by the United States Border Patrol without a warrant or probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.

In a consent search case, the Court ruled that knowledge of the right to refuse consent is a factor in whether consent was voluntary, but the state does not need to prove the person knew of that right under the Fourth Amendment.· AI-written

The Court held that a tip from a known informant can create enough reasonable suspicion to justify a patdown under Terry v. Ohio.· AI-written

The Court ruled that civil forfeiture could not apply where the evidence used to invoke the forfeiture was obtained illegally.

The Court, in a case about warrantless searches, held that police need not always be factually correct in conducting such a search, but the search must always be reasonable.· AI-written