Florida v. White (1999)

But see id. at 566-67 , 119 S.Ct. 1555 (Souter, J., concurring) (“The Fourth , Amendment does not concede any talismanic significance to use of the term ‘contraband’ whenever a legislature may resort to a novel forfeiture sanction in the interest of law enforcement. ...”).• As the law stands, however, straight tag vehicles used for hire are not "contraband.” .

Compare Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 474-75 (“[A] search or seizure carried out on a suspect’s premises without a warrant is per se unreasonable, unless the police can show it falls within one of a carefully defined set of exceptions . . . .”) with Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 566 (1999) (“[B]ecause the police seized respondent’s vehicle from a public area . . . the warrantless seizure . . . did not involve any invasion of respondent’s privacy.”).

Cf. Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 563-64 (1999) ("In deciding whether a challenged governmental action violates the [Fourth] Amendment, we have taken care to inquire whether the action was regarded as an unlawful search and seizure when the Amendment was framed.").

Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999).

Under the automobile exception, however, “police officers may seize and search an automobile prior to obtaining a warrant where they have probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband.” United States v. Silva, 742 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.2014); see also Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 563-64 , 119 S.Ct. 1555 , 143 L.Ed.2d 748 (1999) (“[WJhen federal officers have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment does not re…

Robinson v. Cook, 706 F.3d 25, 31-32 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2831 , 186 L.Ed.2d 885 (2013); see also Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 563-64 , 119 S.Ct. 1555 , 143 L.Ed.2d 748 (1999) (“[W]hen federal officers have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment does not require them to obtain a warrant prior to searching the car for and seizing the contraband.”).

See, e.g., Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 563-64 , 119 S.Ct. 1555 , 143 L.Ed.2d 748 (1999) (“[W]hen federal officers have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment does not require them to obtain a warrant prior to search.ing the car for and seizing the contraband.”).

No. 2F37M56101227, 621 F.2d 444, 449 (1st Cir. 1980); see also Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 , 564-65 & n.3 (1999); United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 458 (2d Cir. 2004) ("[L]aw enforcement officers who have probable cause to believe an automobile is subject to forfeiture may both seize the vehicle from a public place and search it without a warrant."); United States v. Brookins, 345 F.3d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 2003) ("[T]he police may seize an automobile without first obta…

Id. at 740 (discussing Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 564 (1999) and G.M.

One is the "automobile exception," which permits "a warrantless search of an automobile [to] proceed so long as the authorities have probable cause to believe that contraband is within the particular vehicle." Simpkins, 978 F.3d at 6 ; see also Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 , 563–64 (1999) ("[W]hen federal officers have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment does not require them to obtain a warrant prior to searching the car …

As to the items officers discovered within the vehicle, the district court held these were properly searched and seized as part of an inventory search. “[T]he police may seize an automobile without first obtaining a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that it is forfeitable contraband.” United States v. Brookins, 345 F.3d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 561 (1999)).

Based upon what the officers knew about the license plate and VIN -9- Case Nos. 20-5819/5820, United States v. Vance alone, the officers could seize the vehicle without a warrant because they “certainly had probable cause to believe that the vehicle itself was contraband.” Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999).

Collins, therefore, is inapposite. 4 See United States v. Jones, 893 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2018) (holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a parking lot accessible to other tenants of a multi- family home); see also Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 566 (1999) (“[B]ecause the police seized respondent’s vehicle from a public area—respondent’s employer’s parking lot—the warrantless seizure also did not involve any invasion of respondent’s privacy.”); Conlan, …

Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999); United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 423-34 (1976).

The Supreme Court expressly rejected an argument similar to Plaintiffs’, namely that there is some difference “be‐ tween permitting the immediate search of a movable automo‐ bile based on actual knowledge that it then contains contra‐ band [and] the discretionary seizure of a citizen’s automobile based upon a belief that it may have been used at some time in the past to assist in illegal activity.” White, 526 U.S. at 564 (alteration in original and internal quotation marks o…

See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 330 (1990) (noting that a police officer could lawfully seize evidence “which was in plain view and which the officer had probable cause to believe was evidence of a crime”); United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482, 491 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[I]f the existence of probable cause alone justifies the warrantless search of a vehicle parked in a public place, certainly a warrantless sei- zure of such a vehicle, based only on probable cause, also fall…

See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 330 (1990) (noting that a police officer could lawfully seize evidence “which was in plain view and which the officer had probable cause to believe was evidence of a crime”); United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482, 491 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[I]f the existence of probable cause alone justifies the warrantless search of a vehicle parked in a public place, certainly a warrantless sei- zure of such a vehicle, based only on probable cause, also fall…

Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 561 (1999); Decker, 19 F.3d at 290 .

Cf. Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 563-64 , 119 S.Ct. 1555 , 143 L.Ed.2d 748 (1999) ("In deciding whether a challenged governmental action violates the [Fourth] Amendment, we have taken care to inquire whether the action was regarded as an unlawful search and seizure when the Amendment was framed.").

Florida v. White , 526 U.S. 559 , 561, 119 S.Ct. 1555 , 143 L.Ed.2d 748 (1999) ; United States v. Decker , 19 F.3d 287 , 290 (6th Cir. 1994) (" '[W]here police *799 have probable cause to believe a car is subject to forfeiture, or have validly seized a car for forfeiture, the polic[e] may search the car without a warrant.' ") (quoting United States v. Pace , 898 F.2d 1218 , 1245 (7th Cir. 1990) ).

The relevant exception ,in this case is the so-called “forfeiture” exception, under which “law enforcement officers who have probable cause to believe an automobile is -subject to forfeiture may both seize the vehicle from a public place and search it without a warrant.” United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 458 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 561 , 119 S.Ct. 1555 , 143 L.Ed.2d 748 (1999)); see also, e.g., United States v. Smith, 510 F.3d 641, 651 (6t…

Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 563-64 , 119 S.Ct. 1555 , 143 L.Ed.2d 748 (1999) (“[W]hen federal officers have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment does not require them to obtain a warrant prior to searching the car for and seizing the contraband.”) (citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 150-51 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925)).

In the context of warrantless seizures involving automobiles, there exists a strong governmental interest, recognized under the Fourth Amendment, to ferret out crime and conduct necessary investigations before the vehicle and its occupants may be "spirited away." See Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999). ¶ 29.

Officers also need not “obtain a warrant before seizing an automobile from a public place when they have probable cause to believe that it is forfeitable contraband.” Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 561 (1999).

Indeed, in Florida v. White, the Supreme Court held that the seizure of a vehicle under a Florida criminal forfeiture law did not violate the Fourth Amendment because “they certainly had probable cause to believe that the vehicle itself was contraband under Florida law.” 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999) (emphasis in original).

Warrantless Search A. Automobile Exception "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained." ( California v. Acevedo (1991) 500 U.S. 565, 580 , 111 S.Ct. 1982 , 114 L.Ed.2d 619 .) "One of the circumstances in which the Constitution does not require a search warrant is when the police stop an automobile on the street or highway because they have probable cause to believe it contain…

Ill. 2015) (citing Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 561 (1999)).

“This exception ‘derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest situations.’” Smith at ¶ 11 , quoting Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338 (2009). {¶25} As noted, Clark first argues that the record is “insufficient in establishing the lawfulness of an arrest” and “provides little detail as to the grounds for a search incident to arrest.” Clark’s argument in this regard lacks merit. “[T]he Fourth Amendment permits warr…

But if Mills did carry this unspoken assumption, it would be an assumption that Horton was guilty until proven innocent. 244 Id. at 71:24-72:7. 245 Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 563-66 (1999) (probable cause to believe vehicle was forfeitable contraband required to seize it); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52 (1970) (“For constitutional purposes, we see no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding a car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magist…

Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 564 (1999); see also G.M.

It is well settled that “the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless arrests in public places where an officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has occurred.” Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999).

United States v. Vance, No. 20-5819, 2021 WL 5133250 , at *5 (6th Cir. Nov. 4, 2021) (“Based upon what the officers knew about the license plate and VIN alone, the officers could seize the vehicle without a warrant because they ‘certainly had probable cause to believe that the vehicle itself was contraband.’”), cert. denied, No. 21-7355, 2022 WL 1131502 (U.S. Apr. 18, 2022) (quoting Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999)).

As such, Wright is inapposite to the case at bar and the opinion does not provide Appellant with an avenue for relief. - 17 - J-A20025-20 right of arrest without a warrant as in a felony whenever he has probable cause to believe the defendant has violated section . . . 2701 (relating to simple assault) . . . against a family or household member although the offense did not take place in the presence of the police officer”); see also Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999)…

As such, Wright is inapposite to the case at bar and the opinion does not provide Appellant with an avenue for relief. - 17 - J-A20025-20 right of arrest without a warrant as in a felony whenever he has probable cause to believe the defendant has violated section . . . 2701 (relating to simple assault) . . . against a family or household member although the offense did not take place in the presence of the police officer”); see also Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999)…

No. 46-4, at 4), that proposition likewise fails. “[T]he Fourth Amendment permits warrantless arrests in public places where an officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has occurred.” Fla. v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999). ® As there is no genuine, material dispute of fact as to whether Defendants violated Plaintiff’?s Fourth Amendment rights, the Court does not reach Defendants’ qualified immunity argument.

Respondents' officers must have "probable cause to believe that the vehicle is, in fact, subject to [*2]forfeiture" ( United States v Gaskin , 364 F3d 438, 458 [2d Cir 2004], cert denied 544 US 990 [2005], citing Florida v White , 526 US 559, 561 [1999]), based on facts and circumstances "within" their "knowledge" ( id. at 456).

IV.; Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 563 (1999).

“In the context of warrantless seizures involving automobiles, there exists a strong governmental interest, recognized under the Fourth Amendment, to ferret out crime and conduct necessary investigations before the vehicle and its occupants may be ‘spirited away.’” State v. Brereton, 826 N.W.2d 369, 377-78 (Wisc. 2013) (quoting Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999)), cert. denied.

As to seizures of property, such “seizures without a warrant can be reasonable if law enforcement has probable cause to believe that the property is contraband, evidence [or instrumentality] of a crime, or otherwise subject to forfeiture.” Harrell, 138 F. Supp. 3d at 490 (citing Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999); United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 458 (2d Cir. 2004)).

Noting law enforcement officers may seize a car from a public place without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, the court found Aguayo "had the same or lesser expectation of privacy" in his vehicle when it was housed at a repair shop than if it had "been parked in a public street because a repair person would presumably have access to the interior of the vehicle, the engine, and the trunk." ¶34 Under the automobil…

Rather, “the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless arrests in public places where an officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has occurred,” Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999), and also for any criminal offense committed in a police officer’s presence, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001).

Whether and how the automobile exception applies when the vehicle is parked on private, residential property is an open question, see Robinson v. Cook, 706 F.3d 25 , 31 n.4 (1st Cir. 2013) (noting issue and collecting cases); United States v. Goncalves, 642 F.3d 245, 250 (1st Cir. 2011), implicating trespass as well as privacy search-and-seizure concerns, cf. Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013); Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 561 (1999); State v. Hobbs, 933 N.E.2d 1…

There has been no showing than any additional or substitute safeguard would lessen the risk of an erroneous deprivation of petitioner’s property.” See also Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565-66 (1999) (no warrant required for the seizure in a public place of a vehicle that police have probable cause to believe is itself contraband).

There has been no showing than any additional or substitute safeguard would lessen the risk of an erroneous deprivation of petitioner's property." See also Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565-66 , 119 S.Ct. 1555 , 143 L.Ed.2d 748 *1093 (1999) (no warrant required for the seizure in a public place of a vehicle that police have probable cause to believe is itself contraband).

Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has stated that “[i]n addition to the special considerations recognized in the context of movable items, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has consistently accorded law enforcement officials greater latitude in exercising their duties in public places.” Florida v. White , 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999) (holding, among other things, that seizure of the defendant’s vehicle from his employer’s parking lot without a warrant did not involve…

Florida v. White, 526 U.S. at 561, 565-66 , 119 S.Ct. 1555 .

Although the United States Constitution authorizes an arrest without warrant on probable cause, in a public place for a felony offense, see Florida v. White , 526 U.S. 559, 564 (1999), in Texas, the authority to arrest a suspect without a warrant is governed by statute, see State v. Parson , 988 S.W.2d 264, 266 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, no pet.).

See Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 , 565–66 (1999); see id. (“[W]e have drawn upon the established distinction between a warrantless seizure in an open area and such a seizure on private premises.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

See United States v. Dixon, 1 F.3d 1080 , 1082 n. 2 (10th Cir.1993) (declining to address issue not raised in original § 2255 motion), abrogated on other grounds by Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (1999); see also Jones v. Gibson, 206 F.3d 946, 958 (10th Cir. 2000) (applying waiver analysis to cumulative-error claim not asserted in habeas petition).

See Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (1999) (holding that Fourth Amendment did not require police to obtain a warrant before seizing automobile from public place when they had probable cause to believe that it was forfeitable contraband).