Page 45 - TPA Journal January - February 2019

Shortly thereafter, Collins returned home. Officer Amendment jurisprudence: the automobile
Rhodes walked up to the front door of the house exception to the warrant requirement and the
and knocked. Collins answered, agreed to speak protection extended to the curtilage of a home.
with Officer Rhodes, and admitted that the
The Court has held that the search of an
motorcycle was his and that he had bought it
automobile can be reasonable without a warrant.
without title. Officer Rhodes then arrested Collins.
In that case, law enforcement officers had
Collins was indicted by a Virginia grand jury for probable cause to believe that a car they observed
receiving stolen property. He filed a pretrial traveling on the road contained illegal liquor. They
motion to suppress the evidence that Officer stopped and searched the car, discovered and
Rhodes had obtained as a result of the warrantless seized the illegal liquor, and arrested the
search of the motorcycle. Collins argued that occupants. The Court upheld the warrantless
Officer Rhodes had trespassed on the curtilage of search and seizure, explaining that a “necessary
the house to conduct an investigation in violation difference” exists between searching “a store,
of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied dwelling house or other structure” and searching
the motion and Collins was convicted. “a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile”
because a “vehicle can be quickly moved out of
The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed. It
the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant
assumed that the motorcycle was parked in the
must be sought.” The “ready mobility” of
curtilage of the home and held that Officer Rhodes
vehicles served as the core justification for the
had probable cause to believe that the motorcycle
automobile exception for many years. Later cases
under the tarp was the same motorcycle that had
then introduced an additional rationale based on
evaded him in the past. It further concluded that
“the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of
Officer Rhodes’ actions were lawful under
traveling on the public highways.”
the Fourth Amendment even absent a warrant
because “numerous exigencies justified both his “Automobiles, unlike homes, are subjected to
entry onto the property and his moving the tarp to pervasive and continuing governmental regulation
view the motorcycle and record its identification and controls, including periodic inspection and
number.” licensing requirements. As an everyday
occurrence, police stop and examine vehicles
The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed on
when license plates or inspection stickers have
different reasoning. It explained that the case was expired, or if other violations, such as exhaust
most properly resolved with reference to fumes or excessive noise, are noted, or if
the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception.
headlights or other safety equipment are not in
Under that framework, it held that Officer Rhodes proper working order.”
had probable cause to believe that the motorcycle
was contraband, and that the warrantless search In announcing each of these two justifications, the
therefore was justified. We granted certiorari and Court took care to emphasize that the rationales
now reverse. applied only to automobiles and not to houses, and
therefore supported “treating automobiles
The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part
differently from houses” as a constitutional
that the “right of the people to be secure in their matter.
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be When these justifications for the automobile
violated.” This case arises at the intersection of exception “come into play,” officers may search
two components of the Court’s Fourth an automobile without having obtained a warrant

Jan./Feb. 2019 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 41