California+v+Acevedo

=California V. Acevedo=

January 8, 1991 - May 30, 1991
California officers saw Charles Acevedo enter a building known to contain marijuana and leave with a paper bag about the same size as the marijuana packages. Acevedo put the bag in his trunk and drove away, only to be stopped and searched by the officers, who found marijuana in the bag. He made a motion to suppress the marijuana as evidence, because the police did not have a search warrant. The court denied this motion and Acevedo pleases guilty. The California Court of Appeal reversed the trail court, ruling that the marijuana should have been used as evidence. U.S. v Ross ruled that officers can search a automobile if they have probable cause to believe there is evidence somewhere in the vehicle. U.S. v Chadwick ruled that officers need a warrant to search a closed container. The California Court of Appeals decided that the latter case was more relevant, because the officers only had probably cause to believe the bag contained evidence, not the car itself. Therefore, 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.

__Case Basics__
89-1690
 * Docket No.**

California
 * Petitioner**

Acevedo
 * Respondent**

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)
 * Decided By**

500 U.S. 565 (1991)
 * Opinion**

Tuesday, January 8, 1991
 * Argued**

Thursday, May 30, 1991
 * Decided**

__Conclusion__

 * Decision:** 6 votes for California, 3 vote(s) against
 * Legal provision:** Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

The court revised the Court of Appeals and ruled that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's general search warrant requirement is large enough to cover a situation where the police only have probably cause to believe there is evidence in a certain container within the car. The Court adopted a single rule: "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained." Justices White, Stevens, and Marshall dissented.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_89_1690