United+States+v.+Ross

Return to  Constitutional Law page

Someone informed the police that someone was selling narcotics that were being kept in the trunk and that this car was parked in a specific parking lot. Then Police officers from the District of Columbia heaed to the location and found the car. The driver matched the description so they arrested him. One of the officers then searched the trunk and found a closed brown paper bag and found glassine bags containing white powder. The officer then took the car to the police station where another warrentless search uncovered a pouch containing cash in the trunk. The guy was then convicted of possession of Heroin with intent to distribute. The Heroin and cash found in the searches were shown in evidence after the guy motioned to supress the evidence but was denied. The Court of Appeals reversed it because even though they had probable cause they had no warrant to open the paper bag or the pouch.

-United States vs. Ross is derived from the case Carroll v. United States where the precedent saying the police may perform a warrant-less search of an automobile if they have probable cause. This case set the standard for the "automobile exception" listed under the 4th Amdendment - "automobile exception" - "practical mobility" was established because to obtain a warrant for an autombile would be impractical because of its ability to leave the area of jurisdiction - vehicles are presumed to have a lower expectation of privacy because they provide clear visibility of thier contents (i.e. clear windows) Police officers pulled over Ross and searched his trunk. They found a paper bag with heroin in it. They acted on a tip that Ross was selling drugs out of his car. Also, they performed another search after this and found $3200 in a leather pouch.--> both searches were performed without warrants-->Arrested and placed on trial for possession of a narcotic. -->The officers didn't violate the 4th amendment because they had probable cause -When police properly stop a vehicle and search it, they can search any area within the vehicle that could hold an illegal substance.

 **- Majority Decision**: - Justice John Paul Stevens stated in his decision that police may search compartments and containers within a vehicle even though the contents are not in plain view, so long as the search is based on probable cause.

 - Justice Thurgood Marshall stated in his decision against the case that he majority's position “takes a first step toward an unprecedented ‘probable cause’ exception to the warrant requirement”
 * - Minority Decisio****n:**