cardwell
lewis
argued
march
decided
june
july
law
enforcement
officers
interviewed
respondent
connection
murder
occurred
five
days
viewed
automobile
thought
used
commission
crime
october
response
previous
request
respondent
appeared
questioning
office
investigating
authorities
left
car
nearby
public
commercial
parking
lot
though
police
secured
warrant
respondent
arrest
respondent
arrested
late
afternoon
car
towed
police
impoundment
lot
warrantless
examination
next
day
outside
car
revealed
tire
matched
cast
tire
impression
made
crime
scene
paint
samples
taken
respondent
car
different
foreign
paint
fender
victim
car
respondent
tried
convicted
murder
conviction
affirmed
appeal
subsequent
habeas
corpus
proceeding
district
concluded
seizure
examination
respondent
car
violated
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
evidence
obtained
therefrom
excluded
trial
appeals
affirmed
concluding
scraping
paint
car
exterior
search
within
meaning
fourth
amendment
search
incident
respondent
arrest
unconsented
car
seizure
justified
ground
car
instrumentality
crime
plain
view
held
judgment
reversed
pp
reversed
justice
blackmun
joined
chief
justice
justice
white
justice
rehnquist
concluded
examination
exterior
respondent
automobile
upon
probable
cause
reasonable
invaded
right
privacy
requirement
search
warrant
meant
protect
pp
primary
object
fourth
amendment
protection
privacy
warden
hayden
generally
less
stringent
warrant
requirements
applied
vehicles
homes
offices
carroll
chambers
maroney
search
vehicle
less
intrusive
implicates
lesser
expectation
privacy
pp
search
case
concededly
made
basis
probable
cause
infringed
expectation
privacy
pp
circumstances
case
seizure
impounding
car
unreasonable
pp
vehicle
seized
public
place
access
meaningfully
restricted
chambers
maroney
supra
followed
coolidge
new
hampshire
distinguished
pp
exigent
circumstances
justifying
warrantless
search
vehicle
limited
situations
probable
cause
unforeseeable
arises
time
arrest
cf
chambers
supra
pp
justice
powell
view
inquiry
federal
habeas
corpus
review
state
prisoner
fourth
amendment
claim
confined
solely
question
whether
defendant
opportunity
state
courts
raise
claim
adjudicated
fairly
reverse
judgment
appeals
since
respondent
contend
denied
opportunity
see
schneckloth
bustamonte
powell
concurring
leo
conway
assistant
attorney
general
ohio
argued
cause
petitioner
brief
william
brown
attorney
general
nicholas
curci
assistant
attorney
general
bruce
campbell
appointment
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondent
andrew
frey
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
solicitor
general
bork
assistant
attorney
general
petersen
edward
korman
justice
blackmun
announced
judgment
opinion
chief
justice
justice
white
justice
rehnquist
join
case
presents
issue
legality
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
warrantless
seizure
automobile
examination
exterior
police
impoundment
area
car
removed
public
parking
lot
evidence
obtained
upon
examination
introduced
respondent
state
trial
murder
convicted
federal
district
habeas
corpus
application
ruled
examination
search
violative
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
supp
sd
ohio
appeals
sixth
circuit
affirmed
granted
certiorari
conclude
circumstances
case
violation
protection
afforded
amendments
respondent
arthur
ben
lewis
tried
convicted
jury
ohio
state
murder
paul
radcliffe
appeal
ohio
affirmed
judgment
conviction
state
lewis
ohio
denied
review
lewis
ohio
respondent
federal
habeas
application
district
record
evidentiary
hearing
adduced
following
facts
afternoon
july
radcliffe
body
found
near
car
banks
olentangy
river
delaware
county
ohio
car
gone
embankment
come
rest
brush
radcliffe
died
shotgun
wounds
casts
made
tire
tracks
scene
foreign
paint
scrapings
removed
right
rear
fender
radcliffe
automobile
within
five
days
radcliffe
death
investigation
began
focus
upon
respondent
lewis
learned
lewis
knew
radcliffe
lewis
negotiating
sale
business
executed
contract
sale
purchaser
jack
smith
employed
radcliffe
accountant
examine
lewis
books
police
went
lewis
place
business
question
observed
model
color
car
thought
might
used
push
radcliffe
vehicle
embankment
several
months
later
however
late
september
lewis
questioned
october
asked
appear
next
morning
office
division
criminal
activities
columbus
interrogation
october
warrant
respondent
arrest
obtained
district
found
time
addition
probable
cause
arrest
police
also
probable
cause
believe
lewis
car
used
commission
crime
automobile
similar
observed
leaving
scene
color
vehicle
similar
color
paint
scrapings
victim
car
telephone
call
smith
made
person
said
radcliffe
proved
caller
made
statements
true
benefit
lewis
body
repair
work
done
grille
hood
right
front
fender
parts
car
day
following
crime
victim
desk
calendar
day
death
showed
notation
call
ben
lewis
respondent
lewis
complied
request
appear
drove
car
activities
office
placed
public
commercial
parking
lot
half
block
away
arrived
shortly
although
police
possession
arrest
warrant
entire
period
lewis
present
served
warrant
arrested
late
afternoon
approximately
two
hours
earlier
lewis
permitted
call
lawyer
two
attorneys
present
behalf
office
time
formal
arrest
upon
arrest
lewis
car
keys
parking
lot
claim
check
released
police
tow
truck
dispatched
remove
car
parking
lot
police
impoundment
lot
impounded
car
examined
next
day
technician
ohio
bureau
criminal
investigation
tread
right
rear
tire
found
match
cast
tire
impression
made
scene
crime
technician
testified
opinion
foreign
paint
fender
radcliffe
car
different
paint
samples
taken
respondent
vehicle
difference
color
texture
order
layering
paint
district
concluded
seizure
examination
lewis
car
violative
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
evidence
obtained
therefrom
excluded
state
trial
accordingly
issued
writ
habeas
corpus
requiring
state
initiate
action
new
trial
respondent
within
days
alternative
release
appeals
affirming
held
scraping
paint
exterior
lewis
car
fact
search
within
meaning
fourth
amendment
consent
search
incident
lewis
arrest
seizure
car
justified
ground
vehicle
instrumentality
crime
plain
view
ii
case
factually
different
prior
car
search
cases
decided
evidence
concerned
product
search
implicates
traditional
considerations
owner
privacy
interest
consisted
paint
scrapings
exterior
observation
tread
tire
operative
wheel
issue
therefore
whether
examination
automobile
exterior
upon
probable
cause
invades
right
privacy
interposition
warrant
requirement
meant
protect
issue
previously
addressed
notion
warrant
search
seize
dependent
upon
assertion
superior
government
interest
property
see
entick
carrington
tr
proposition
warrant
valid
primary
right
search
seizure
may
found
interest
public
complainant
may
property
seized
right
possession
gouled
explicitly
rejected
controlling
fourth
amendment
considerations
warden
hayden
rather
property
rights
primary
object
fourth
amendment
determined
protection
privacy
said
earlier
decisions
time
underscored
essential
purpose
fourth
amendment
shield
citizen
unwarranted
intrusions
privacy
jones
see
also
schmerber
california
katz
dionisio
least
since
carroll
recognized
distinction
warrantless
search
seizure
automobiles
movable
vehicles
one
hand
search
home
office
generally
less
stringent
warrant
requirements
applied
vehicles
chambers
maroney
chronicled
development
car
searches
seizures
underlying
factor
line
decisions
exigent
circumstances
exist
connection
movable
vehicles
circumstances
furnish
probable
cause
search
particular
auto
particular
articles
often
unforeseeable
moreover
opportunity
search
fleeting
since
car
readily
movable
chambers
maroney
strikingly
true
automobile
owner
alerted
police
intentions
consequence
motivation
remove
evidence
official
grasp
heightened
still
another
distinguishing
factor
search
automobile
far
less
intrusive
rights
protected
fourth
amendment
search
one
person
building
powell
concurring
one
lesser
expectation
privacy
motor
vehicle
function
transportation
seldom
serves
one
residence
repository
personal
effects
car
little
capacity
escaping
public
scrutiny
travels
public
thoroughfares
occupants
contents
plain
view
see
people
case
person
knowingly
exposes
public
even
home
office
subject
fourth
amendment
protection
katz
dionisio
say
part
interior
automobile
fourth
amendment
protection
exercise
desire
mobile
course
waive
one
right
free
unreasonable
government
intrusion
insofar
fourth
amendment
protection
extends
motor
vehicle
right
privacy
touchstone
inquiry
present
case
nothing
interior
car
personal
effects
fourth
amendment
traditionally
deemed
protect
searched
seized
introduced
evidence
search
limited
examination
tire
wheel
taking
paint
scrapings
exterior
vehicle
left
public
parking
lot
fail
comprehend
expectation
privacy
infringed
stated
simply
invasion
privacy
said
exist
abstract
theoretical
air
pollution
variance
board
western
alfalfa
circumstances
probable
cause
exists
warrantless
examination
exterior
car
unreasonable
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
established
conceded
police
probable
cause
search
lewis
car
automobile
similar
color
model
car
seen
leaving
scene
crime
similarity
corroborated
comparison
paint
scrapings
taken
victim
car
color
paint
lewis
automobile
lewis
repair
work
done
car
immediately
following
death
victim
nexus
radcliffe
day
death
provided
reason
believe
car
used
commission
crime
lewis
arrested
cooper
california
iii
concluding
examination
exterior
vehicle
upon
probable
cause
reasonable
yet
determine
whether
prior
impoundment
automobile
rendered
examination
violation
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
think
police
impounded
car
prior
examination
made
spot
constitutional
barrier
use
evidence
obtained
thereby
circumstances
case
seizure
unreasonable
respondent
asserts
case
indistinguishable
coolidge
new
hampshire
agree
present
case
differs
coolidge
scope
search
circumstances
seizure
since
coolidge
car
parked
defendant
driveway
seizure
automobile
required
entry
upon
private
property
chambers
maroney
automobile
seized
public
place
access
meaningfully
restricted
fact
ground
upon
coolidge
plurality
opinion
distinguished
chambers
see
also
cady
dombrowski
considering
whether
lack
warrant
seize
vehicle
invalidates
otherwise
legal
examination
car
chambers
highly
pertinent
chambers
four
men
automobile
arrested
shortly
armed
robbery
concluded
probable
cause
arrest
probable
cause
search
vehicle
car
taken
highway
police
station
time
later
search
producing
incriminating
evidence
conducted
stated
constitutional
purposes
see
difference
one
hand
seizing
holding
car
presenting
probable
cause
issue
magistrate
hand
carrying
immediate
search
without
warrant
given
probable
cause
search
either
course
reasonable
fourth
amendment
factor
still
obtained
station
house
mobility
car
unless
fourth
amendment
permits
warrantless
seizure
car
denial
use
anyone
warrant
secured
event
little
choose
terms
practical
consequences
immediate
search
without
warrant
car
immobilization
warrant
obtained
respondent
contends
unlike
chambers
probable
cause
search
car
existed
time
prior
arrest
therefore
exigent
circumstances
assuming
probable
cause
previously
existed
know
case
principle
suggests
right
search
probable
cause
reasonableness
seizing
car
exigent
circumstances
foreclosed
warrant
obtained
first
practicable
moment
exigent
circumstances
regard
vehicles
limited
situations
probable
cause
unforeseeable
arises
time
arrest
cf
chambers
exigency
may
arise
time
fact
police
might
obtained
warrant
earlier
negate
possibility
current
situation
necessitating
prompt
police
action
judgment
appeals
reversed
ordered
footnotes
call
made
july
man
identified
smith
radcliffe
stated
books
condition
smith
knew
victim
identify
caller
radcliffe
gunshots
heard
day
two
women
lived
near
site
crime
thus
became
clear
someone
impersonated
radcliffe
making
telephone
call
calendar
page
july
missing
investigation
disclosed
writing
indentation
next
underlying
page
july
indicated
written
page
july
apparently
car
trunk
also
opened
tire
trunk
observed
supp
evidence
obtained
part
interior
vehicle
however
introduced
discussed
following
cases
husty
scher
brinegar
preston
cooper
california
dyke
taylor
implement
mfg
cases
decided
since
chambers
might
added
list
include
coolidge
new
hampshire
cady
dombrowski
see
also
harris
note
warrantless
searches
seizures
automobiles
harv
rev
petitioner
contends
lewis
car
keys
parking
lot
claim
check
seized
plain
view
incident
arrest
seizure
served
transfer
constructive
possession
vehicle
searched
seized
instrumentality
crime
feel
district
appeals
correct
rejecting
argument
irrespective
instrumentality
analyses
concept
constructive
possession
found
justify
search
seizure
item
actual
possession
noted
arrest
made
office
division
criminal
activities
examination
vehicle
took
place
time
later
police
impoundment
lot
difference
time
place
eliminates
contention
rule
allowing
contemporaneous
searches
justified
example
need
seize
weapons
things
might
used
assault
officer
effect
escape
well
need
prevent
destruction
evidence
crime
things
might
easily
happen
weapon
evidence
accused
person
immediate
control
justifications
absent
search
remote
time
place
arrest
accused
arrest
custody
search
made
another
place
without
warrant
simply
incident
arrest
preston
confronted
issue
propriety
search
car
interior
neither
carroll
supra
cases
require
suggest
every
conceivable
circumstance
search
auto
even
probable
cause
may
made
without
extra
protection
privacy
warrant
affords
coolidge
concerned
thorough
extensive
search
entire
automobile
including
interior
vacuum
sweepings
incriminating
evidence
obtained
search
kind
raises
different
additional
considerations
present
examination
tire
operative
wheel
taking
exterior
paint
samples
vehicle
present
case
reasonable
expectation
privacy
district
state
argued
lewis
consented
seizure
car
requesting
police
impound
safekeeping
district
stated
viewing
evidence
light
favorable
state
petitioner
lewis
clearly
unequivocally
consent
seizure
search
automobile
testimony
established
petitioner
consented
taking
custody
car
safekeeping
evidence
petitioner
consented
expressly
impliedly
seizure
automobile
purposes
search
make
comparison
paint
scraping
required
section
painted
exterior
recently
repaired
sampled
conceivably
necessitate
several
scrapings
first
sample
conclusive
laboratory
analysis
similarly
make
cast
tire
tread
operative
wheel
require
laboratory
equipment
address
question
found
determinative
justice
powell
opinion
concurring
result
question
raised
briefed
parties
justice
powell
concurring
result
reverse
judgment
appeals
reasons
set
forth
concurring
opinion
schneckloth
bustamonte
stated
therein
hold
federal
collateral
review
state
prisoner
fourth
amendment
claims
claims
rarely
bear
innocence
confined
solely
question
whether
petitioner
habeas
corpus
provided
fair
opportunity
raise
adjudicated
question
state
courts
ibid
case
contention
respondent
denied
full
fair
opportunity
litigate
claim
state
courts
justice
stewart
justice
douglas
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
join
dissenting
fundamental
rule
area
constitutional
law
searches
conducted
outside
judicial
process
without
prior
approval
judge
magistrate
per
se
unreasonable
fourth
amendment
subject
specifically
established
exceptions
katz
coolidge
new
hampshire
see
also
camara
municipal
since
warrant
authorizing
search
seizure
case
since
none
specifically
established
exceptions
warrant
requirement
existed
convinced
judgment
appeals
must
affirmed
casting
way
avoid
impact
previous
decisions
plurality
opinion
first
suggests
ante
search
really
took
place
case
since
police
scrape
paint
respondent
car
make
observations
tires
whatever
merit
argument
might
possess
abstract
irrelevant
circumstances
disclosed
record
argument
irrelevant
simple
reason
police
taking
paint
scrapings
looking
tires
first
took
possession
car
fourth
fourteenth
amendments
protect
unreasonable
searches
seizures
assuredly
seizure
plurality
opinion
next
seems
suggest
basic
constitutional
rule
overlooked
case
subject
seizure
automobile
true
course
line
decisions
beginning
carroll
recognized
automobile
exception
constitutional
requirement
warrant
word
automobile
talisman
whose
presence
fourth
amendment
fades
away
disappears
coolidge
supra
rather
carroll
doctrine
simply
recognizes
obvious
moving
automobile
open
road
presents
situation
practicable
secure
warrant
vehicle
quickly
moved
locality
jurisdiction
warrant
must
sought
carroll
supra
see
also
reasonable
likelihood
automobile
moved
carroll
doctrine
simply
inapplicable
see
coolidge
supra
preston
facts
case
make
clear
beyond
peradventure
automobile
exception
available
uphold
warrantless
seizure
respondent
car
well
time
automobile
seized
respondent
keys
car
securely
within
police
custody
thus
absolutely
likelihood
respondent
either
moved
car
meddled
time
necessary
obtain
search
warrant
realistic
possibility
anyone
else
position
either
loss
therefore
understand
plurality
opinion
conclusion
ante
potential
car
removal
period
immediately
preceding
car
seizure
facts
record
support
diametrically
opposite
conclusion
finally
plurality
opinion
suggests
exigent
circumstances
might
excused
failure
police
procure
warrant
opinion
nowhere
mystical
exigencies
might
counsel
petitioner
inventive
suggest
since
authorities
taken
care
procure
arrest
warrant
even
respondent
arrived
questioning
scarcely
said
probable
cause
discovered
late
point
time
prevent
obtaining
warrant
seizure
automobile
automobile
effectively
immobilized
period
respondent
interrogation
fear
evidence
might
destroyed
hardly
exigency
particularly
remembered
fear
prompted
seizure
preceding
months
respondent
though
investigation
full
control
car
quite
simply
case
exigent
circumstances
existed
today
clear
either
carroll
cases
require
suggest
every
conceivable
circumstance
search
auto
even
probable
cause
may
made
without
extra
protection
privacy
warrant
affords
chambers
maroney
follow
settled
constitutional
law
established
decisions
affirm
judgment
appeals
dissent
directed
toward
analysis
justice
blackmun
plurality
opinion
like
plurality
consider
issue
raised
justice
powell
concurrence
neither
briefed
argued
parties
even
solicitor
general
appeared
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
appeals
judgment
case
candidly
admitted
brief
satisfactory
reason
appears
failure
law
enforcement
officers
obtained
warrant
appears
facts
case
real
likelihood
respondent
destroyed
concealed
evidence
sought
time
required
seek
procure
warrant
brief
amicus
curiae
hardly
argued
questioning
respondent
police
first
time
alerted
intentions
thus
suddenly
providing
motivation
remove
car
official
grasp
ante
even
putting
one
side
question
respondent
acted
destroy
evidence
police
custody
fact
fully
aware
official
suspicion
several
months
preceding
interrogation
questioned
several
occasions
prior
arrest
alerted
day
interrogation
police
wished
see
nonetheless
voluntarily
drove
car
columbus
keep
appointment
investigators
plurality
opinion
correctly
rejects
ante
petitioner
contention
seizure
incident
arrest
respondent
accused
arrest
custody
search
made
another
place
without
warrant
simply
incident
arrest
preston