Changes in Supreme Court Decisions Concerning Vehicle Searches between Carroll v. the U.S in 1925 and U.S v. Ross in 1982
In the case of Carroll v. U.S of 1925, the United States Supreme Court upheld that warrantless searches of cars for contraband goods do not violate the Fourth Amendment of the constitution (Del 56). They upheld that the mobility of vehicles targeted for a search makes it impossible to get a search warrant in time. This ruling meant that security agents had the mandate to stop a vehicle and conduct a thorough search similar to what they would do if they have a warrant as long as they had just cause to believe that the vehicle had contraband goods. Inasmuch as the issue of infringing the personal privacy of the owners of the vehicles as stated in the Fourth Amendment was raised, the court held that getting a warrant to search an automobile in not practically possible. This is so because the police will not have the authority to detain the car for the entire period of getting the search warrant (McCord 92).
In 1982, the issue of warrantless search and seizure was brought back to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case U.S v. Ross (Champion 78). The court ruled that police officers may conduct a warrantless search on automobiles as long as they had a legitimate cause of concern that such a vehicle was carrying contraband goods. This decision was very different from the ruling made in 1925 case. However, the court upheld that in line with the Fourth Amendment of the constitution, the security agents had to prove that they had a legitimate lead making them believe that the particular vehicle had contraband goods. This additional clause, which was not there in the 1925 ruling, was meant to eliminate possible harassment of citizens by security agents.
Limitations Placed by Courts on Law Enforcement in Terms of Searching Closed Containers in Vehicles
The ruling made in 1925 and that made in 1982 about warrantless searches of automobiles allows security agents to conduct searches when they have reliable information about movement of contraband goods (Hails 122). However, the ruling made in 1982 placed some limitations that had to be observed by law enforcement agencies. The security agents are required to have a just cause to believe that the containers in the vehicle are carrying contraband goods. There must be some reliable source of intelligence passed to the security officers which they can present in court to prove that they had reliable information about the cargo in the automobile. According to Stephens and Glenn, people often feel that such searches often infringe on their privacy (45). Sometimes it may cause delays or even destruction of property (Hemmens and Brody 88). For these reasons, a limitation to the searches was introduced in 1982 by the Supreme Court that requires the officers to conduct the warrantless search only if they have a strong belief about the illegality of the goods on transit.
I strongly agree with this limitation. It is not ethical and legally right for security agents to stop every automobile and conduct search without a probable cause of concern that it could be carrying contraband goods. That would lead to massive waste of time for the commuters and harassment of innocent citizens. Officers must have a lead that can be confirmed in a court of law making them believe that the search is necessary.
Works Cited
Champion, Dean. The American Dictionary of Criminal Justice: Key Terms and Major Court Cases. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishers, 2015. Print.
Del, Carmen. Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice / Rolando V. Del Carmen, Sam Houston State University. New York: Cengage, 2016. Print.
Hails, Judy. Criminal Evidence. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Publishers, 2014. Print.
Hemmens, Craig, and David Brody. Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court: A Guide to the Major Decisions on Search and Seizure, Privacy, and Individual Rights. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010. Print.
McCord, James. Criminal Law and Procedure for the Paralegal: A Systems Approach. Clifton Park: Delmar Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Stephens, Otis, and Richard Glenn. Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: Rights and Liberties Under the Law. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio, 2006. Print.