Criminal Procedure—Luggage Found During a Lawful Warrantless Search of an Automobile May Not Be Searched Without a Warrant—Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979)
Vol: 55, Issue: 4, Page: 871
1980
- 117Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage117
- Abstract Views73
- Downloads44
Artifact Description
In Arkansas v. Sanders, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in the absence of exigent circumstances, police must obtain a warrant before searching luggage taken from an automobile lawfully stopped and searched for contraband. The majority opinion, written by Justice Powell, sharply restricts further extension of the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment. The Court found the exception inapplicable for two reasons. First, a suitcase in the custody of police lacks the inherent mobility of an automobile. Second, there is a much greater expectation of privacy associated with luggage than is associated with a car. A caustic dissent by Justice Blackman joined by Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision creates an impracticable and confusing rule that makes little sense in terms of fourth amendment policy. This note will examine the interaction in Arkansas v. Sanders of the legitimate expectation of privacy doctrine, the "automobile exception," and the exigent circumstances exception. The note will conclude that despite the ambiguity of the majority's method of determining when a container gives rise to legitimate expectation of privacy, Sanders is a reaffirmation of fourth amendment rights which had been threatened by the ever-increasing number of exceptions to the warrant clause.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know