California VS. Acevedo

When And Where Did The Case Take Place:

Took place in California. Argued on January 8,1991 and ended in May 30,1991. They were discussing this issue for 4 months and 22 days.

What events lead up to the case going before the Supreme Court?

Who Were The Parties Involved In The Case?

Charles Acevedo (Defendant):

James R. Gallagher: (Prosecutor)

Harry B. Blackmun (Judge):

California police officers saw Charles Acevedo enter an apartment known to contain several packages of marijuana and leave a short time later carrying a paper bag approximately the same size as one of the packages. When Acevedo put the bag in the trunk of his car and began to drive away, the officers stopped the car, searched the bag, and found marijuana. At his trial, Avecedo made a motion to suppress the marijuana as evidence, since the police had not had a search warrant. When the trial court denied his motion, Acevedo pleaded guilty and appealed the denial of the motion. The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, ruling that the marijuana should have been suppressed as evidence. The Supreme Court had ruled previously that officers can thoroughly search an automobile if they have probable cause to believe there is evidence somewhere in the vehicle ( U.S. v. Ross ), and also that officers need a warrant to search a closed container ( U.S. v. Chadwick ). The California Court of Appeal decided that the latter case was more relevant. Since the officers only had probable cause to believe the bag contained evidence - not the car generally - they could not open the bag without a search warrant. The California Supreme Court denied review, but the Supreme Court granted the State's petition.

BY: Travion Pace ,Amandine Tougouma, & Angeles Segovia

What Was The Supreme Courts Ruling?

What Is The Constitutional Issue Involved In The Case?

Yes. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, the Court reversed the Court of Appeal and ruled that the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's general search-warrant requirement is broad enough to cover a situation where the police only have probable cause to believe there is evidence in a specific movable container within the car. "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained."

The Fourth Amendment was the constitutional issue involved in the case.

The Fourth Amendment is: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

VS.

What Was The Reasoning Given By The Supreme Court For Making Their Decision?

Supreme Court, which interpreted the Carroll doctrine to provide one rule to govern all automobile searches.

Case:

California VS. Acevedo

How Do You Feel About The Ruling? Why?

California VS. Acevedo (1991)

We feel that they made a good decision on the ruling. Why, because yes they didn't have a warrant to check the box but they had a warrant to search the car and everything in it the car. It was a smart decision.