United States v. Ross

The Court's decision was the first in a series of decisions which led to broad powers of the part on the police to search closed containers in automobiles without first obtaining a search warrant.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides that the government may not subject a person to an unreasonable search or seizure of their "persons, houses, papers, and effects." Generally, to be reasonable, a search must be based on "probable cause," that is, the police officers must have some reason to believe that the search will find contraband, evidence of a crime, or similar items. Also, prior to conducting a search, the police generally have to obtain a warrant from a judge authorizing the search. In certain situations, however, the Supreme Court had determined that the police do not need to obtain a warrant to conduct a search supported by probable cause. These situations, referred to as exceptions to the warrant requirement, typically involve scenarios where the police do not have time to obtain a warrant, or where obtaining a warrant would be useless. Thus, for example, the police may search a person for weapons upon arresting the person.

One such exception to the warrant requirement is the search of an automobile. In a 1925 case, Carroll v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the police may search an automobile without first obtaining a warrant because an automobile may be quickly moved while the warrant is sought. In later cases, the Court has also justified such searches on the basis that people do not have an expectation of privacy in their cars because they are designed to travel on public streets and are subject to public scrutiny. However, the Supreme Court had not, through much of the 1960s and 1970s, been clear on whether the police may also search closed containers within the car. In previous cases, the Court held that where the intention of the police was to search the container itself and not the car, and where the police had the opportunity to seize the container before it was put into the car, the police must obtain a warrant before searching the container. The Court also suggested that the police are always required to obtain a warrant before searching a container in a car.

On 27 November 1978, Albert Ross was pulled-over in his automobile by Washington, D.C. police officers. Based on information obtained from an informant, the police believed Ross to be in possession of heroin. The police stopped Ross and searched the vehicle. In the trunk, an officer discovered a closed brown paper bag and a zippered leather pouch. The officer opened both and found heroin in the paper bag and $3,200 in cash in the leather pouch. Ross was arrested and placed on trial for possession of a narcotic.

At his trial, Ross asked the trial court to prevent the prosecution from introducing the evidence seized by the police. Ross claimed that the police should have obtained a search warrant before opening the paper bag and leather pouch. The trial court disagreed, and Ross was convicted. However, Ross appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which agreed with his argument and reversed his conviction. The prosecution then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed with the original decision of the trial court and reinstated Ross' conviction. The Court concluded that, when the police rightfully conduct a warrantless search of an automobile, the police may search anywhere in the car, including separate containers, in which the item for which the police are searching may be stored: "If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search." Thus, for example, the police would not be justified in opening a paper bag which was too small to hold the item being searched for. However, because the paper bag in Ross' car was capable of holding the heroin for which the police were searching, the search of the bag and leather pouch were proper.

Three justices, Marshall, Brennan, and White, disagreed with the Court's decision. These justices thought that the reasons the Court has allowed warrantless searches of automobiles did not apply to containers within automobiles. Justice Marshall, writing for the dissenters, concluded that "the traditional rationales for the automobile exception plainly do not support extending it to the search of a container found inside a vehicle." For example, although automobiles are mobile and may be driven away while the police try to obtain a warrant, there is no similar problem with a container seized by the police and kept in the possession of the police. Also, although people may have less of an expectation of privacy in their cars, they still expect that closed containers in their cars, such as purses and briefcases, will provide some level of privacy.

The Ross decision had a significant impact on the power of police officers to search containers inside of automobiles without having to first obtain a warrant. The decision itself provided two separate rules for such containers. Under Ross, a container that coincidentally happens to be in a car subject to a warrantless search may itself be searched without a warrant. However, under the Court's previous decisions, if the police seek to search the container itself, the mere fact that it is placed in the automobile does not allow the police to search the container without first obtaining a warrant. In California v. Acevedo, a 1991 decision also involving the search of a paper bag stored in a car's trunk, the Court abolished this distinction and ruled, relying on its decision in Ross, that whenever the police have probable cause to believe evidence or illegal items are in an automobile, whether or not in a container, the police may conduct a search without obtaining a search warrant. Thus Ross has had a profound impact on the power of police to search automobiles without first obtaining a search warrant.