Ralph B. Strickland, Jr.
Agency Legal Specialist
North Carolina Justice Academy
Volume 2 Number 2
January 1995
State of North Carolina v. Isleib, 319 N.C. 634, 356 S.E.2d 573 (1987).
SEARCHING A MOTOR VEHICLE BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE: EASIER THAN YOU MIGHT THINK.
In April 1985, Dare County Deputy Sheriff C. H. Midgette met with one of his informers. This informant had previously given information on at least three prior occasions to Deputy Midgette which led to arrests and convictions in drug cases involving marijuana. The informant said "...that a woman named 'Martha' would be coming to Hatteras Island from the beach area north of Oregon Inlet the following day, that she would be driving her Army-green Dodge or Plymouth station wagon with letters or a decal on the door, that she would be accompanied by a while male whom the informant did not know, and that she would be delivering quarter-ounce bags of marijuana. The informant did not know Martha's last name, nor did he know her address other than that she lived at the beach." The deputy realized he knew who Martha was and that she lived at the beach north of Oregon Inlet. He did not apply for a search warrant.
The very next day, after lunch, Deputy Midgette was northbound on Highway 12 north of the village of Waves on Hatteras Island when he saw Martha driving the station wagon. He and another deputy stopped the car. He told Martha that he had probable cause to believe she was transporting marijuana in her vehicle, and he was going to search it based on an "emergency stop." He had no search warrant; she was not under arrest nor did she consent to the search. Quarter-ounce bags of marijuana were found in the car in a small bag. Even the male companion in the vehicle with her was carrying marijuana, and more was found in Martha's purse. Upon arrest, she became the defendant in this case.
Now both the trial court in Dare County and the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the search of this vehicle was illegal. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, and held that this was a valid, legal and Constitutional search, thus making your job much easier to perform, and to perform correctly.
First, the Court looked back to the most important vehicle search case ever decided: Carroll v. U.S., a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1925 (yes! 1925!) which is still good law today. (See Farb, Arrest, Search and Investigation in North Carolina, Institute of Government, Second Edition, 1992, p. 321 for a short discussion of this case.) In Carroll the Court held that a law enforcement officer would not need a search warrant to search a motor vehicle (based on probable cause to believe that an item subject to seizure was inside) if that vehicle were on public property. This is the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment (also known as the Carroll doctrine).
Now - why would the Court carve out an exception to the warrant requirement and apply it to motor vehicles? Well, for two very good reasons. One reason is the inherent mobility of the motor vehicle. It is self-evident that motor vehicles have mobility and are easily moved (note how many are stolen!); by their own power, pushing, towing, etc. Such mobility makes it impracticable for you to write, apply for and have issued a search warrant while the vehicle remains in your jurisdiction. And the second reason is that all of us have a decreased expectation of privacy in our vehicles which is a direct result of its characteristics and use: it is usually in the open; in public; if parked, you can see inside while walking by; and it is "pervasively regulated" (you need an operator's license to drive it, registration and inspection tags for it, etc.).
So, in order to make a warrantless search of a vehicle you need probable cause and some exigent circumstances (it is a motor vehicle, it is mobile, I have to act now). But in Isleib the officer, according to the Court of Appeals, had no exigency or emergency: he knew he had probable cause hours before the stop and search. So he had plenty of time to get a search warrant before stopping and searching the vehicle. Well, you can see in a moment that had this become the law just how difficult it would have been to search a vehicle in a public place. You stop it; seize it; have other officers secure it; write a search warrant; go to the magistrate's office and stand in line; apply for and have the warrant issued; and finally, execute it. Fortunately, the Supreme Court of North Carolina held that a search warrant is not necessary with motor vehicles in a public place. Please note carefully what the Court said:
The fact that the officer has probable cause to secure the search warrant and adequate time to obtain one, but fails to do so, does not vitiate (invalidate) the rule of Carroll. We hold that no exigent circumstances other than the motor vehicle itself are required in order to justify a warrantless search of a motor vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that it contains the instrumentality of a crime or evidence pertaining to a crime and the vehicle is in a public place.
OK - you're thinking, "That's fine and dandy, but what does it really mean to me, a working law enforcement officer in North Carolina?" Hey, I'm glad you asked, because Isleib (building on Carroll and other cases) means this:
1. You may approach any vehicle parked on public property (city street, highway, etc.) or on a public vehicular area (any property generally open to and used by the public for vehicular traffic; i.e., mall parking lot, store parking lot, etc.) and look into the passenger area of the vehicle. Such action is not a search (even if you aid your vision with a flashlight) and you need no suspicion to even approach a vehicle already parked. If at any point in time you develop probable cause to search the vehicle, you may do so without a warrant even if it is not then occupied. If the vehicle is locked, you may use reasonable force to break and enter the vehicle (see G.S. 15A-251).
2. If a motor vehicle is being operated on a public street or highway, or in a public vehicular area, and you develop reasonable suspicion to stop it, you may certainly do so. If during the course of the traffic stop you develop probable cause to believe an item subject to seizure is in the vehicle, you may search it then without a warrant. This would be true even if the person operating the vehicle drives it into his own private property (dwelling, business, etc.) before stopping it. The fact that you have a right to stop the vehicle gives you the right to follow it and complete actions normally associated with the average traffic stop, not withstanding where it comes to rest.
3. If you develop probable cause to believe that an item subject to seizure is located in a motor vehicle, and that vehicle is already parked on the curtilage of a dwelling ("the area immediately surrounding the home that is so intimately tied to the home that it deserves the Fourth Amendment's protection," Farb p. 86) you will need a search warrant to both enter the curtilage and search the vehicle. As you can readily see, the justification for a warrantless search is simply not available when the vehicle is already sitting on the curtilage of the residence, next to the home.
It seems to me that the rule of the Carroll/Isleib case line is very clear: if it is a motor vehicle, and you have probable cause to search it, you can do so without a search warrant so long as it is not already parked on the curtilage of a dwelling. Of course, and it goes without saying, anytime you are not certain about any warrantless search, secure a search warrant. There is never a legal penalty for having the search warrant, and generally your case will be stronger.
Finally, a personal note: please notice that Deputy Midgette termed his search of the vehicle an "emergency search" or words to that effect. It is more properly termed a Carroll doctrine search or an auto search, and that is how you should refer to it in and out of court. Thanks.
If you have any questions, please contact me or the other attorneys here at the Academy at (910) 525-4151.