Eighth Circuit: Automobile Exception Applies to Temporarily Immobile Vehicles
This case law update was written by Michael J. Sgarlat, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2015. Mr. Sgarlat works with federal employees to respond to proposed disciplinary and adverse actions, and has experience litigating cases before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.
On April 16, 2019, Des Moines police officers responded to various calls of gunshots fired at an apartment complex. The callers reported 3 potential suspects and 2 cars associated with those suspects. One caller described a suspect as a black male with dreadlocks in a white shirt and dark blue pants, a description fitting Shaun Short that evening. Callers also reported that one of the cars involved was a black Dodge Charger, the same make and model car owned by Short.
Officer Cordel Miller arrived at the apartment complex and encountered Short in the apartment’s parking lot, near the black Dodge Charger. The Charger had a flat tire. Miller asked Short a series of questions, including questions about the shots fired, whether Short had weapons on him, and who was involved in the shooting. Miller placed Short in handcuffs and proceeded to survey the Dodge Charger. He smelled marijuana from the rear driver’s side window, which was cracked open. He then called in Narcotics Investigator Andrew Becker.
Becker and another officer searched the Charger and found a small bag with 2 grams of marijuana and Short’s identification card. Becker then applied for and obtained a search warrant for Short’s apartment. In the search, officers found 70 grams of marijuana, baggies with residue, cash, and scales. Officers also found firearms.
Short was charged, and filed a motion to suppress evidence found in the vehicle and his apartment. The district court denied his motion, and he conditionally plead guilty to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court concluded that the smell of marijuana gave the officers probable cause to search the vehicle and the automobile exception permitted them to search the vehicle without a warrant. He then appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
On appeal, Short did not contest the conclusion that the smell of marijuana gave the officers probable cause to search the vehicle. Rather, he argued that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not apply to a vehicle with a flat tire.
The court of appeals noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that no separate exigency is needed for a vehicle search because “if a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment … permits police to search the vehicle without more.” But the court further noted that the Supreme court has never held that only a “readily mobile” automobile may be searched without a warrant.
Here, Short cited no case holding that the automobile exception does not apply when the vehicle to be searched is temporarily immobilized, and the court of appeals could not track any down. However, the court did find published opinions from two sister circuits that held just the opposite. The Tenth Circuit has upheld the warrantless search of a van that had been towed to a garage for repairs, and the Fifth Circuit has upheld the warrantless search of a vehicle that crashed into the side of a duplex while being pursued by police.
The court of appeals found that there was no expectation of privacy in the parking lot in question, the officers indisputably had probable cause to search the Charger, and the “easily repairable” flat tire did not cause the vehicle to lose its inherent mobility. As such, the court found that the automobile exception applied and the district court properly denied the motion to suppress.
On appeal, Short also made arguments that the district court abused its discretion in denying a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), to determine the sufficiency of the warrant affidavit’s showing of probable cause, and that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable prison sentence. The court of appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Read the full case: United States v. Short
For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.