SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

Chapter 13
Searches of Containers:
General Rule: As a general rule, a search warrant will be required in order to
search a container of any type. “The Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution prohibits the government from engaging in unreasonable searches
and seizures of a person’s ‘effects.’” (People v. Pereira (2007) 150 Cal.App.4 th
1106, 1111; see also United States v. Monghur (9 th Cir. 2009) 588 F.3 rd 975.)
Although there is some authority for the proposition that; “(t)he rationale
justifying a warrantless search of an automobile that is believed to be
transporting contraband arguably applies with equal force to any movable
container that is believed to be carrying an illicit substance” (United
States v. Ross (1982) 456 U.S. 798, 809 [72 L.Ed.2 nd 572, 584.), the courts
have not yet specifically extended this rationale to objects in containers
other than in vehicles or seized incident to a suspect’s arrest. (See Justice
Stevens’ dissent in California v. Acevedo (1991) 500 U.S. 565, 598 [114
L.Ed.2 nd 619, 646], pointing out that this is the next step.)
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
Also, property in the possession or under the control of a subject
who is booked into custody is subject to search: “Once articles
have lawfully fallen into the hands of the police they may examine
them to see if they have been stolen, test them to see if they have
been used in the commission of a crime, return them to the
prisoner on his release, or preserve them for use as evidence at the
time of trial. (People v. Robertson 240 Cal.App.2d 99 (1966) 105-
106 . . . .) During their period of police custody an arrested
person’s personal effects, like his person itself, are subject to
reasonable inspection, examination, and test. (People v. Chaigles
237 N.Y. 193 [142 N.E. 583, 32 A.L.R. 676], Cardozo, J.)”
(People v. Rogers (1966) 241 Cal.App.2 nd 384, 389; see also
(People v. Xinos (2011) 192 Cal.App.4 th 637, 662-663; search of a
vehicle’s sensing and diagnostic module (SDM).)
But note that the warrantless downloading of the digital
data of a vehicle’s SDM depends upon the continuing
existence of probable cause justifying the search. (Ibid.)
As the law stands today, however, a search warrant will still generally be
required under these circumstances. (Smith v. Ohio (1990) 494 U.S. 541,
542 [108 L.Ed.2 nd 464, 467].)
A person has an expectation of privacy in his or her private closed
containers. (United States v. Welch (9 th Cir. 1993) 4 F.3 rd 761,
764; a woman’s purse.)
602