Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


California v. Acevado

No description

Hayden Basnett

on 10 January 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of California v. Acevado

Case Basics
Case Summary
Police observed Mr. Acevedo leaving an apartment known to contain marijuana with a paper bag the size of marijuana packages they had seen earlier. They proceeded to watch the defendant as he put the package into his trunk and drive away. police stopped his car, and opened the trunk and bag which revealed marijuana. Acevedo later pleaded guilty to the possession of marijuana with intent to sell.
Acevedo motioned for the marijuana to be suppressed, his motion was denied but he appealed his motion. Later the California Court of Appeals concluded that the marijuana should have been suppressed.
Supreme Court Vote
Justices White, Stevens, and Marshall dissented.
By: Hayden Basnett
Bibliography :
Docket No.
Decided By
Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)
500 U.S. 565 (1991)
Tuesday, January 8, 1991
Thursday, May 30, 1991

Robert Foster
(on behalf of the Petitioner)
Fred W. Anderson
(on behalf of the Respondent)

Previously the Supreme Court ruled that officers needed a warrant to search a closed container (U.S. v. Chadwick). Many other cases like this had been brought to trial but the California court of appeals decided (U.S. v. Chadwick) was the most relevant ruling to this case. and decided that since the officers only had probable cause that the bag contained evidence, not the car, they needed a warrant.

The Supreme Court later reversed the ruling stating 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 Oyez Project, 2005-2011 )
Related Cases:
(U.S. v. Chadwick)
(U.S. v. Ross)
Full transcript