California Vs. Acevedo

Argument for Defendant

• The Defendant, Charles Acevedo argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were in fact violated due to the fact that the police only had reasonable cause to search the bag and not the entire car. Therefore, unless they had reasonable cause to search the car, he was protected under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth District California Court of Appeals would suggest that Acevedo was correct in his belief in the violation of his rights. As previously stated, “Although the court agreed that the officers could seize the paper bag, it held that, under Chadwick, they could not open the bag without first obtaining a warrant for that purpose.” (Cornell)

Relief Sought

• Allow officers to look in a vehicle without a warrant with probable cause
• Allow officers to look under the seats and other areas that are not in plain sight without a warrant with probable cause
• Allow officers to look inside closed containers or bag without a warrant with probable cause

Arguments for Plaintiff

Works Cited

• The state of California Argued that, “[A]n exception to the warrant requirement for moving vehicles, for it recognized a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. It therefore 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 likely disappearance of the vehicle did not contravene the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment.” (Cornell)

CaseBriefs. "California v Acevedo." n.d. CaseBriefs. http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/. 17 January 2015.

Cornell. "CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v. Charles Steven ACEVEDO." 1991. Cornell University Law School. CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v. Charles Steven ACEVEDO. 17 January 2015.

LastName, First, Middle. "Article Title." Journal Title (Year): Pages From - To. Print.

Media, Supreme Court. "California v Acevedo ." 16 January 2015. Oyez Scholars. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_89_1690. 17 January 2015.

Unknown. "CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v. Charles Steven ACEVEDO." 1991. Cornell University Law School . http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/500/565. 17 January 2015.

Facts of the Case:

Majority decision

Lower Court Verdict

• While watching an apartment that was known to have drugs in it, a man named Charles Acevedo entered.
• On October 30, 1987 after leaving the apartment Acevedo was pulled over, where his car was promptly searched.
• Upon searching, marijuana was found out of plain sight in the trunk of the car.

• After being tried in Santa Ana, California Acevedo pleaded guilty
• He then appealed his case stating that his Fourth Amendment Right's had been violated
• After the case had been tried in the California Court of Appeals, it was concluded that the original ruling was unconstitutional.

• The Court Ruled 6 to 3 in the favor of the State of California
• It was ruled Tuesday January 8, 1991
• Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion stating that the Fourth Amendment was broad enough to cover the search of a motor vehicle without a warrant if there was probable cause.
• “Concurrence. Justice Antonin Scalia (”J. Scalia”) agrees with the reasoning of the majority and the dissent, but believes, after a historical analysis of Fourth Amendment cases, that the majority’s decision is more faithful to the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.” (CaseBriefs)

Relevance?

Dissenting Opinion

• The Supreme Court case between the State of California and Charles Acevedo still holds incredible relevance today. It is in fact the law today, along with the laws laid out in the Chadwick case are held today. The two cases were very closely related and shaped how the law is today. It is legal for a police officer to search a vehicle without a first obtaining a warrant if the officer has probable cause. Because of this court case the police now have a broader range over how much they can search a car without a warrant.

• 3 out of the nine Justices' favored Acevedo
• “[T]hat even proof beyond a reasonable doubt should not allow a warrantless search unless supported by an exception to the warrant requirement. The dissent reasons that once the police have the container under their exclusive control, there is no exigent circumstance that would require them to search the container until a warrant was issued.” (CaseBriefs)
• There was a concurrent idea written by White, but it did not differ from the dissent written by Steven’s. All in all the dissent decided that the search and seizure of Mr. Acevedo’s vehicle was unconstitutional, and was a violation of Acevedo’s Fourth Amendment Right. White made the argument that because by law the authorities had the right to obtain the bag from Acevedo that the police would have no trouble obtaining a warrant to search the bag after it had been seized

Importance of the case

California Vs. Acevedo

• This case in some way changed the Fourth Amendment, which states, “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.” (Cornell)
• Because of this Court Case it is now legal to completely search a car and its contents without a warrant with probable cause