{"id":3935,"date":"2010-05-18T17:18:11","date_gmt":"2010-03-09T08:10:33","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-03-09T08:16:30","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3935","title":{"rendered":"CA2: Trailer inherently mobile for automobile exception, even with its “legs” out"},"content":{"rendered":"

The automobile exception applies to a trailer not connected to a vehicle. It is still easily movable, and its ability to move on its own is not the question. United States v. Navas<\/a>, 597 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 2010):<\/p>\n

\nIn light of Howard’s emphasis on inherent mobility and the practical concerns that animate the mobility rationale, the district court erred in its assessment of the trailer sans cab. It started by wrongly characterizing the automobile exception as “generally relat[ing] to some type of vehicle that is capable of moving on its own.” Navas, 640 F. Supp. 2d at 267. However, when the Supreme Court introduced the mobility rationale in Carroll, it referenced “wagon[s],” which, like trailers, require an additional source of propulsion [*18] before they can be set in motion. Carroll, 267 U.S. at 153; see also Ross, 456 U.S. at 820 n.26 (referring to “contraband . . . transported in a horse-drawn carriage”). A wagon is not “capable of moving on its own,” but the Carroll Court considered it to present mobility concerns similar to those presented by the car searched in that case. And, at least for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a trailer unhitched from a cab is no less inherently mobile than a wagon without a horse.<\/p>\n

The district court’s adoption of a false premise — i.e., that the automobile exception centers on a vehicle’s ability to “mov[e] on its own” — led it to place undue emphasis on the fact that the trailer was disconnected from a cab at the time of the search. However, the trailer remained inherently mobile as a result of its own wheels and the fact that it could have been connected to any cab and driven away. For similar reasons, we are unpersuaded by the district court’s reference to the position of the trailer’s “legs.” These legs served only as a temporary stabilization mechanism. They could be retracted and a cab could be attached to the trailer. As such, the fact that the trailer was “detached from a … cab with its legs dropped,” Navas, 640 F. Supp. 2d at 267, did not eliminate its inherent mobility.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3935","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3935"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3935\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}