Driving a car to a drug purchase is sufficient to invoke the automobile exception

Merely using a car to get to the scene of a drug sale is sufficient for the government to invoke the automobile exception to search it. United States v. Abulaban, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44563 (E.D. Va. June 6, 2008):

Defendant distinguishes the facts before the Court from the cases allowing warrantless searches of cars that are instrumentalities of crime. He argues that, rather than probable cause to believe the car was used in the crime, “there was no reason to believe that there was anything in that car.” Def.’s Reply to Pros.’s Response to Def.’s Mot. to Suppress at 4. There was no informant who told officers that there were drugs in the car, as in Maryland [v. Dyson], 527 U.S. at 465, and in United States v. Ross, 456 US 798, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982). However, like the car in Dickey-Bey, the BMW was used to transport Defendant to the place where drugs were to be procured, with the intention that the cocaine would be removed from the location in the vehicle. In addition, the car was also used for transportation to meetings where the conspiracy was planned, and transported Defendant to the purchase site, along with those he supposed to be co-conspirators and the money to be used to purchase the drugs. There is also reason to believe that Defendant intended to use the BMW to transport the cocaine and further proceeds away from the transaction at its conclusion. The Court concludes that the officers had probable cause to search the BMW, as it was an instrumentality of the drug conspiracy and thereby falls within the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement.

Officers approached a parked Suburban because the vehicle matched the description of one that was stolen. As they approached, there was no license plate and a fake temporary tag. One occupant saw them coming, got out, and started to walk away. They stopped him and handcuffed him. Inside, the defendant was hiding something. In plain view inside were sandwich bags and money scattered on the floor. The information collectively made reasonable suspicion to call a drug dog which alerted, and this was probable cause. United States v. West, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12311 (8th Cir. June 9, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.