automobile exception in Missouri

2023The State relies on California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991), to argue that "[t]he police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained." "Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, police may search a vehicle and seize contraband found if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband and exigent circumstances necessitate the search." State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443, 458 (Mo. banc 1999).

2019“The automobile exception is such an exception.” Id.5 “[T]he automobile exception to the warrant requirement allows an officer to search a vehicle and seize contraband when probable cause exists.” Id. (quoting State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443, 458 (Mo. banc 1999)).

2025“Under this exception, police may search anywhere in a vehicle ‘pursuant to probable cause to believe that contraband, weapons or evidence of a crime are within the automobile.’” Id. (quoting State v. Burkhardt, 795 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Mo. banc 1990)). “[P]robable cause to search ... exist[s] where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” Id. (quoting State v. Hampton, 959 S.W.2d 444, 451 (Mo. banc 1997)). 7 Here, Appellant argues the automobile exception does not apply because his

2025“Under this exception, police may search anywhere in a vehicle ‘pursuant to probable cause to believe that contraband, weapons or evidence of a crime are within the automobile.’” Id. (quoting State v. Burkhardt, 795 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Mo. banc 1990)). “[P]robable cause to search ... exist[s] where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” Id. (quoting State v. Hampton, 959 S.W.2d 444, 451 (Mo. banc 1997)). 7 Here, Appellant argues the automobile exception does not apply because his

2025“Under this exception, police may search anywhere in a vehicle ‘pursuant to probable cause to believe that contraband, weapons or evidence of a crime are within the automobile.’” Id. (quoting State v. Burkhardt, 795 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Mo. banc 1990)). “[P]robable cause to search ... exist[s] where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” Id. (quoting State v. Hampton, 959 S.W.2d 444, 451 (Mo. banc 1997)). 7 Here, Appellant argues the automobile exception does not apply because his

2018The trial court's order granting the Motion to Suppress did not address the automobile exception. 12 "Under the automobile exception, 'police may search a vehicle and seize contraband found if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband and exigent circumstances necessitate the search.' " Humble , 474 S.W.3d at 216 (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Walker , 460 S.W.3d 81 , 85 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) ). " 'As a practical matter, exigent circumstances exist whenever an automobile is involved [because] the mere possibility that the vehicle can be moved is generally suffi

2023The State relies on California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991), to argue that "[t]he police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained." "Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, police may search a vehicle and seize contraband found if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband and exigent circumstances necessitate the search." State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443, 458 (Mo. banc 1999).

2016Acevedo , in response to courts’ confusion concerning containers found within vehicles searched under the automobile exception, essentially added an exception" that may apply to a container, holding that "police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.” 500 U.S. at 580 , 111 S.Ct. 1982 .

2006State v. Lane, 937 S.W.2d 721, 722 (Mo. banc 1997).

1999State v. Lane, 937 S.W.2d 721, 722 (Mo. banc 1997); State v. Milliorn, 794 S.W.2d 181, 183 (Mo. banc 1990).

2023Id.

2023In Breese, by contrast, the Court emphasized that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement validated the search of the contents of the automobile. 250 S.W.3d at 419 .

1984The Court held that the scope of a lawful warrantless search under the automobile exception encompasses as extensive a search as could be authorized under a warrant “particularly describing the place to be searched.” Ross, 456 U.S. at 800 , 102 S.Ct. at 2159 (quoting U.S. Const. 4th Amend.) The scope of the war-rantless search of a vehicle “is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found,” rather than the nature of the container where the object is hidden.

1984The Court held that the scope of a lawful warrantless search under the automobile exception encompasses as extensive a search as could be authorized under a warrant “particularly describing the place to be searched.” Ross, 456 U.S. at 800 , 102 S.Ct. at 2159 (quoting U.S. Const. 4th Amend.) The scope of the war-rantless search of a vehicle “is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found,” rather than the nature of the container where the object is hidden.

2025As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held, “even where an automobile is not immediately mobile at the time of the search, ‘the lesser expectation of privacy resulting from its use as a readily mobile vehicle justifie[s] application of the vehicular exception.’” Fields, 456 F.3d at 524 (quoting California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 391 (1985)) (alteration in original). 3 The “reduced expectations of privacy [in a vehicle] derive ... from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on the public highways.” Id. (quoting Carney, 471 U.S. at 392 ) (alteration

2025As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held, “even where an automobile is not immediately mobile at the time of the search, ‘the lesser expectation of privacy resulting from its use as a readily mobile vehicle justifie[s] application of the vehicular exception.’” Fields, 456 F.3d at 524 (quoting California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 391 (1985)) (alteration in original). 3 The “reduced expectations of privacy [in a vehicle] derive ... from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on the public highways.” Id. (quoting Carney, 471 U.S. at 392 ) (alteration

2018Id. " 'Probable cause to search an automobile exists when objective facts, under the totality of the circumstances at the time of the search, would lead a reasonably prudent individual to believe that contraband was located in the automobile.' " Id. (quoting State v. Irvin , 210 S.W.3d 360 , 362 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) ).

2012Specifically, the State argues, “[u]nder the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, officers who have probable cause that contraband is located within a vehicle can search anywhere in the vehicle where such contraband can be found.” State v. Irvin, 210 S.W.3d 360, 362 (Mo.App.2006) (citation omitted).

1983In this case, as in Belton, 453 U.S. at 462 n. 6, 101 S.Ct. at 2865 n. 6, it is unnecessary to consider whether the search and seizure were permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

1983In this case, as in Belton, 453 U.S. at 462 n. 6, 101 S.Ct. at 2865 n. 6, it is unnecessary to consider whether the search and seizure were permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. [1] 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (c) and § 571.115 RSMo 1978, now § 571.030 RSMo 1981.

2025There are two rationales for the automobile exception: first, exigent circumstances from the inherent mobility of automobiles, see id., and second, a reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile due to “pervasive regulation by official authorities.” State v. Donohoe, 770 S.W.2d 252, 255 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989); see also United States v. Vittetoe, 86 F.4th 1200, 1203 (8th Cir. 2023); United States v. Fields, 456 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 2006).

2025There are two rationales for the automobile exception: first, exigent circumstances from the inherent mobility of automobiles, see id., and second, a reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile due to “pervasive regulation by official authorities.” State v. Donohoe, 770 S.W.2d 252, 255 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989); see also United States v. Vittetoe, 86 F.4th 1200, 1203 (8th Cir. 2023); United States v. Fields, 456 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 2006).

2025“Under this exception, police may search anywhere in a vehicle ‘pursuant to probable cause to believe that contraband, weapons or evidence of a crime are within the automobile.’” Id. (quoting State v. Burkhardt, 795 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Mo. banc 1990)). “[P]robable cause to search ... exist[s] where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” Id. (quoting State v. Hampton, 959 S.W.2d 444, 451 (Mo. banc 1997)). 7 Here, Appellant argues the automobile exception does not apply because his

2025There are two rationales for the automobile exception: first, exigent circumstances from the inherent mobility of automobiles, see id., and second, a reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile due to “pervasive regulation by official authorities.” State v. Donohoe, 770 S.W.2d 252, 255 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989); see also United States v. Vittetoe, 86 F.4th 1200, 1203 (8th Cir. 2023); United States v. Fields, 456 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 2006).

2025As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held, “even where an automobile is not immediately mobile at the time of the search, ‘the lesser expectation of privacy resulting from its use as a readily mobile vehicle justifie[s] application of the vehicular exception.’” Fields, 456 F.3d at 524 (quoting California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 391 (1985)) (alteration in original). 3 The “reduced expectations of privacy [in a vehicle] derive ... from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on the public highways.” Id. (quoting Carney, 471 U.S. at 392 ) (alteration

2025There are two rationales for the automobile exception: first, exigent circumstances from the inherent mobility of automobiles, see id., and second, a reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile due to “pervasive regulation by official authorities.” State v. Donohoe, 770 S.W.2d 252, 255 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989); see also United States v. Vittetoe, 86 F.4th 1200, 1203 (8th Cir. 2023); United States v. Fields, 456 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 2006).

2025There are two rationales for the automobile exception: first, exigent circumstances from the inherent mobility of automobiles, see id., and second, a reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile due to “pervasive regulation by official authorities.” State v. Donohoe, 770 S.W.2d 252, 255 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989); see also United States v. Vittetoe, 86 F.4th 1200, 1203 (8th Cir. 2023); United States v. Fields, 456 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 2006).

2024Defendant contends that “[e]ven though police did not do an inventory search on [Defendant’s] car, nothing excused the illegal seizure of [Defendant’s] car and, therefore … the ‘initial intrusion’ was unlawful.” “This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress in the light most 3 Barraza’s judicial interpretation of section 571.030.1(9) was reaffirmed in State v. Key, 437 S.W.3d 264, 269 (Mo. App. 2014).

2019And, though an informant’s “veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are all relevant considerations, . . . [they] are only factors to be considered in the totality of the circumstances; a deficiency in one can be compensated for by a strong showing of some other ‘indicia of reliability.’” State v. Turner, 471 S.W.3d 405, 417 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (quoting State v. Bowen, 927 S.W.2d 463, 466 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996)).

2019“Moreover, while it is not necessary to establish the past reliability of the informant, ‘factual statements of past reliability are [also] a sufficient basis for the magistrate to gauge independently the reliability of an informer.’” State v. Robinson, 454 S.W.3d 428, 439 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (emphasis added) 5 Delapp does not challenge the trial court’s application of the automobile exception. 4 (quoting State v. Laws, 801 S.W.2d 68, 69-70 (Mo. banc 1990)).

2019And, though an informant’s “veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are all relevant considerations, . . . [they] are only factors to be considered in the totality of the circumstances; a deficiency in one can be compensated for by a strong showing of some other ‘indicia of reliability.’” State v. Turner, 471 S.W.3d 405, 417 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (quoting State v. Bowen, 927 S.W.2d 463, 466 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996)).

2019“Moreover, while it is not necessary to establish the past reliability of the informant, ‘factual statements of past reliability are [also] a sufficient basis for the magistrate to gauge independently the reliability of an informer.’” State v. Robinson, 454 S.W.3d 428, 439 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (emphasis added) 5 Delapp does not challenge the trial court’s application of the automobile exception. 4 (quoting State v. Laws, 801 S.W.2d 68, 69-70 (Mo. banc 1990)).

2018The trial court's order granting the Motion to Suppress did not address the automobile exception. 12 "Under the automobile exception, 'police may search a vehicle and seize contraband found if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband and exigent circumstances necessitate the search.' " Humble , 474 S.W.3d at 216 (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Walker , 460 S.W.3d 81 , 85 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) ). " 'As a practical matter, exigent circumstances exist whenever an automobile is involved [because] the mere possibility that the vehicle can be moved is generally suffi

2018As discussed infra , the automobile exception recognized in Missouri allows police to search a vehicle and seize contraband found " 'if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband and exigent circumstances necessitate the search.' " State v. Humble , 474 S.W.3d 210 , 216 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (quoting State v. Walker , 460 S.W.3d 81 , 85 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) ).

2016Acevedo, in response to courts' confusion concerning containers found within vehicles searched under the automobile exception, essentially added an exception that may apply to a container, holding that "police may search an 8 A major source of the court of appeals' misunderstanding regarding this well- established rule appears to be based on language taken out of context from United States v. Edwards, in which the Supreme Court stated, "It is also plain that searches and seizures that could be made on the spot at the time of arrest may legally be conducted later when the accused arrives at the

2015“Probable cause may arise when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the seizing officer are sufficient in themselves to produce in a man of reasonable caution a belief that the contents of the automobile offend the law.” State v. Richardson, 313 S.W.3d 696, 700 (Mo.App.S.D.2010) (quoting State v. Burkhardt, 7 95 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Mo. banc 1990)).

2015At a hearing on a motion to suppress, “[t]he State has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence ■that the motion to suppress should be denied.” State v. Avent, 432 S.W.3d 249, 252 (Mo.App.2014) (citation omitted).

2015“Probable cause may arise when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the seizing officer are sufficient in themselves to produce in a man of reasonable caution a belief that the contents of the automobile offend the law.” State v. Richardson, 313 S.W.3d 696, 700 (Mo.App.S.D.2010) (quoting State v. Burkhardt, 7 95 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Mo. banc 1990)).