California v. Carney (1984)
- Docket
- 83-859
- Decided
- 1984-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the warrantless search of a motor home violate the Fourth Amendment? Conclusion: No. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the opinion of the 6-3 majority. The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment applied a lesser degree of protection to motor vehicles based on the ability to easily and quickly move them before a warrant can be obtained. Also, the regulation surrounding automobiles affords them a lesser expectation of privacy and therefore less protection under the Fourth Amendment. Since Carney’s motor home was not in an area traditionally used for residence and was licensed to operate as a vehicle on public streets, the Court held that it should receive the level of constitutional protection of a motor vehicle rather than a residence. The Court also held that the officers had probable cause and that the search itself was reasonable. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent where he argued that the Court should have relied on the ruling of the California Supreme Court to establish precedent for that state. He also argued that the majority’s decision overemphasized the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. Since the motor home was neither in motion nor was there any indication that Carney would quickly move it, there were no circumstances to prevent the officers from obtaining a warrant. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and Justice Thurgood Marshall joined the dissent.