◆ SpookStack

CG. Search of Motor Vehicles In a 7-2 decision the Court upheld the warrantless search of packages three days after they had been removed from vehicles by Customs Agents and stored in a warehouse, The Court held that the officers had probable cause to believe that marihuana was in the vehicles as well as in the packages, and therefore the search was justified under the vehicle exception, The three-day delay in conducting the search did not affeer its legality because the probable cause still existed, and a search of a vehicle and its contents under the vehicle exception does not have to be contemporaneous with its seizure, 2. Oklahoma v. Castleberry, 105 S.Ct. 1859 (4-1~85)* An evenly divided Court (4-4) affirmed a state court ruling that required police to have a warrant to search a suitcase which they had seized from an automobile trunk, The State court had concluded that the probable cause was limited to the suitcase, and that the vehicle exception did not apply. 3. California v. Carney, 105 S.Ct. 2066 (5-13-85) In a 6-3 decision the Court held that the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement applies to a fully mobile motor home in the same sense that it applies to other vehicles, The Court reasoned that even though the motor home may possess some attributes of a residence, it also possesses the two attributes of vehicles which have historically been used to justify warrantless searches when probable cause exists: (1) they are readily mobile; and (2) there ts a reduced expectation of privacy as a result of pervasive state regulation of vehicles which are capable of travelling on the highways. D. Confessions l. Smith v. Lllinois, 105 S.Ct. 4990 (12-10-84) The Supreme Court stressed the importance of honoring a suspect”s request to have counsel present during custodial interrogation by holding that statements made by a suspect, Following a clear and unequivocal request for a lawyer, may not be used even to cast doubt on the clarity of the suspect’s request to have a lawyer present. 2. Shea v. Louisiana, 105 §.Ct. 1065 (2-20-85) The Supreme Court reaffirmed its ruling in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), that once a criminal defendant has requested an attorney during custodial interrogation all police interrogation must stop and cannot be reinstituted except after counsel has been made available or the defendant has initiated a