A warrant for \u201cpremises\u201d includes vehicles located on it even though they aren\u2019t specified. United States v. Perez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86820 (E.D. Pa. August 5, 2011):<\/p>\n
The Third Circuit has not discussed the lawfulness of vehicle searches pursuant to \u201cpremises warrants\u201d which do not specifically mention automobiles. Cf. United States v. Menke<\/a>, 468 F.2d 20, 22 (3d Cir. 1972) (analyzing search of car as warrantless seizure where \u201carea for search set forth\u201d in agents\u2019 warrant \u201cwas limited to the house and did not include the automobile\u201d). A number of other courts, however, have concluded that a valid warrant for a \u201cpremises\u201d generally permits the search of any vehicles owned by the resident that are located on the property. See, e.g., United States v. Reivich<\/a>, 793 F.2d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v. Percival<\/a>, 756 F.2d 600, 612 (7th Cir. 1985)) (additional citations omitted) (noting that vehicles except for \u201cthe vehicle of a guest or other caller\u201d are included within scope of a warrant authorizing a premises search); United States v. Silva<\/a>, 593 F. Supp. 2d 316, 318 (D. Mass. 2009) (citing United States v. Patterson<\/a>, 278 F.3d 315, 318 (4th Cir. 2002)) (additional citations omitted). In this vein, the Fifth Circuit has \u201cconsistently held that a warrant authorizing a search of \u2018the premises\u2019 includes vehicles parked on the premises.\u201d United States v. Fields, 380 F. App\u2019x 400, 404 n.22 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Singer<\/a>, 970 F.2d 1414, 1418 (5th Cir. 1992)). The parties do not dispute that the 4Runner belonged to Perez. The search of the 4Runner was thus within the scope of the warrant if the vehicle was on the premises at the time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading