SOLVED Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
sprinx
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:43 am

SOLVED Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

Postby sprinx » Wed May 03, 2017 2:44 pm

SOLVED! Thanks!

Hello Everyone!

I need help with Crim Pro. I'm confused about the difference between the police using the automobile exception and the terry "reasonable suspicion" standard. Under Terry, police can search the passenger compartment of a car for weapons if they had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed or dangerous.

However, the automobile exception says that you need probable cause that the car contains evidence of a crime in order to search the car.

So which is it? Do the police only need the reasonable suspicion to search the car? Or must they have PC? In the alternative, is the automobile exception and Terry doctrine discussing 2 completely different scenarios/situations so both standards are right?

Thanks in advance!
Last edited by sprinx on Wed May 03, 2017 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3284
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

Re: Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

Postby Lavitz » Wed May 03, 2017 2:58 pm

sprinx wrote:Under Terry, police can search the passenger compartment of a car for weapons if they had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed or dangerous.

However, the automobile exception says that you need probable cause that the car contains evidence of a crime in order to search the car.

So which is it? Do the police only need the reasonable suspicion to search the car? Or must they have PC? In the alternative, is the automobile exception and Terry doctrine discussing 2 completely different scenarios/situations so both standards are right?

Thanks in advance!

These are two different scenarios.

Terry is a limited situation. If you have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, you can do a limited search for weapons. If the person is in a car, this happens to mean you can search the passenger compartment, because it's accessible to the person.

If you have probable cause that there's evidence of a crime in the car, then regardless of whether you think the person is currently armed and dangerous, you can search the car. It's helpful to remember that the automobile "exception" is an exception to the warrant requirement. Normally, when you have probable cause, you still need to get a warrant. The automobile exception just says that because a car is mobile, you can search it without getting a warrant when you have probable cause.

sprinx
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:43 am

Re: Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

Postby sprinx » Wed May 03, 2017 3:05 pm

Awesome thanks so much! I keep forgetting that the automobile exception is an exception to the warrant requirement. Thanks!! :D

B90
Posts: 521
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

Postby B90 » Wed May 03, 2017 3:11 pm

sprinx wrote:Hello Everyone!

I need help with Crim Pro. I'm confused about the difference between the police using the automobile exception and the terry "reasonable suspicion" standard. Under Terry, police can search the passenger compartment of a car for weapons if they had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed or dangerous.

However, the automobile exception says that you need probable cause that the car contains evidence of a crime in order to search the car.

So which is it? Do the police only need the reasonable suspicion to search the car? Or must they have PC? In the alternative, is the automobile exception and Terry doctrine discussing 2 completely different scenarios/situations so both standards are right?

Thanks in advance!

Terry stop (i.e. "stop and frisk") = reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Officer can pat down to check for weapons and to secure evidence (make sure suspect doesnt stab/shoot someone and suspect doesnt toss or destroy the evidence). Officer can always do this to ensure safety.
Officer may only check for evidence of the crime he stopped the suspect for. Officer can only search items that could reasonably contain evidence of the particular crime. For example, if officer suspects a jewelry heist, officer may check for jewelry.

A traffic stop is different because the driver is being stopped for a traffic violation, broken tailight, etc. , not because he is suspected of a other crime (i.e. a jewlry heist). Again, officer can always check the immediate area (only the "wingspan" or where suspect can reach) for weapons to ensure safety. If officer wants to search the car, he must have probable cause to suspect an actual crime. If the driver was stopped for running a red light or a broken taillight, there is no "evidence" to search for.

Does that make sense/clarify things?

sprinx
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:43 am

Re: Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

Postby sprinx » Wed May 03, 2017 3:14 pm

B90 wrote:
sprinx wrote:Hello Everyone!

I need help with Crim Pro. I'm confused about the difference between the police using the automobile exception and the terry "reasonable suspicion" standard. Under Terry, police can search the passenger compartment of a car for weapons if they had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed or dangerous.

However, the automobile exception says that you need probable cause that the car contains evidence of a crime in order to search the car.

So which is it? Do the police only need the reasonable suspicion to search the car? Or must they have PC? In the alternative, is the automobile exception and Terry doctrine discussing 2 completely different scenarios/situations so both standards are right?

Thanks in advance!

Terry stop (i.e. "stop and frisk") = reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Officer can pat down to check for weapons and to secure evidence (make sure suspect doesnt stab/shoot someone and suspect doesnt toss or destroy the evidence). Officer can always do this to ensure safety.
Officer may only check for evidence of the crime he stopped the suspect for. Officer can only search items that could reasonably contain evidence of the particular crime. For example, if officer suspects a jewelry heist, officer may check for jewelry.

A traffic stop is different because the driver is being stopped for a traffic violation, broken tailight, etc. , not because he is suspected of a other crime (i.e. a jewlry heist). Again, officer can always check the immediate area (only the "wingspan" or where suspect can reach) for weapons to ensure safety. If officer wants to search the car, he must have probable cause to suspect an actual crime. If the driver was stopped for running a red light or a broken taillight, there is no "evidence" to search for.

Does that make sense/clarify things?


Yes it does! So now I can put into perspective the stop and frisk for crimes generally vs. stopping for a traffic violation. Thank you thank you. I'm a visual person who needs examples so this is very helpful.

B90
Posts: 521
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

Postby B90 » Wed May 03, 2017 3:24 pm

sprinx wrote:
B90 wrote:
sprinx wrote:Hello Everyone!

I need help with Crim Pro. I'm confused about the difference between the police using the automobile exception and the terry "reasonable suspicion" standard. Under Terry, police can search the passenger compartment of a car for weapons if they had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed or dangerous.

However, the automobile exception says that you need probable cause that the car contains evidence of a crime in order to search the car.

So which is it? Do the police only need the reasonable suspicion to search the car? Or must they have PC? In the alternative, is the automobile exception and Terry doctrine discussing 2 completely different scenarios/situations so both standards are right?

Thanks in advance!

Terry stop (i.e. "stop and frisk") = reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Officer can pat down to check for weapons and to secure evidence (make sure suspect doesnt stab/shoot someone and suspect doesnt toss or destroy the evidence). Officer can always do this to ensure safety.
Officer may only check for evidence of the crime he stopped the suspect for. Officer can only search items that could reasonably contain evidence of the particular crime. For example, if officer suspects a jewelry heist, officer may check for jewelry.

A traffic stop is different because the driver is being stopped for a traffic violation, broken tailight, etc. , not because he is suspected of a other crime (i.e. a jewlry heist). Again, officer can always check the immediate area (only the "wingspan" or where suspect can reach) for weapons to ensure safety. If officer wants to search the car, he must have probable cause to suspect an actual crime. If the driver was stopped for running a red light or a broken taillight, there is no "evidence" to search for.

Does that make sense/clarify things?


Yes it does! So now I can put into perspective the stop and frisk for crimes generally vs. stopping for a traffic violation. Thank you thank you. I'm a visual person who needs examples so this is very helpful.


You are very welcome. I struggled with this too, so it's encouraging to know I finally grasp it out well enough to explain it to someone else!
Also, remember that for stop and frisk, the officer is stopping the suspect either because he fits a description of someone they are looking for or because the officer personally witnessed the suspect commit a crime (or what the officer reasonably believes is a crime).

User avatar
Caesar Salad
Posts: 11737
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:06 am

Re: Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

Postby Caesar Salad » Tue May 09, 2017 5:16 am

B90 wrote:
sprinx wrote:Hello Everyone!

I need help with Crim Pro. I'm confused about the difference between the police using the automobile exception and the terry "reasonable suspicion" standard. Under Terry, police can search the passenger compartment of a car for weapons if they had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed or dangerous.

However, the automobile exception says that you need probable cause that the car contains evidence of a crime in order to search the car.

So which is it? Do the police only need the reasonable suspicion to search the car? Or must they have PC? In the alternative, is the automobile exception and Terry doctrine discussing 2 completely different scenarios/situations so both standards are right?

Thanks in advance!

Terry stop (i.e. "stop and frisk") = reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Officer can pat down to check for weapons and to secure evidence (make sure suspect doesnt stab/shoot someone and suspect doesnt toss or destroy the evidence). Officer can always do this to ensure safety.
Officer may only check for evidence of the crime he stopped the suspect for. Officer can only search items that could reasonably contain evidence of the particular crime. For example, if officer suspects a jewelry heist, officer may check for jewelry.

A traffic stop is different because the driver is being stopped for a traffic violation, broken tailight, etc. , not because he is suspected of a other crime (i.e. a jewlry heist). Again, officer can always check the immediate area (only the "wingspan" or where suspect can reach) for weapons to ensure safety. If officer wants to search the car, he must have probable cause to suspect an actual crime. If the driver was stopped for running a red light or a broken taillight, there is no "evidence" to search for.

Does that make sense/clarify things?


I am pretty sure this is a little off. Taking crim pro final in 7 hours, not claiming to be an expert, but this was my understanding:

The only rationale for a Terry frisk/patdown is officer safety. The officer needs to have reasonable suspicion that the person is dangerous/poses a threat in order to justify the patdown. Officers cannot "always do this to ensure safety" and a concern about lost or destroyed evidence is not a valid justification under Terry. During the pat down, the officer may seize items that he feels through the persons clothing if either the criminality of the item is immediately apparent, or the officer identifies it as a weapon. The officer may not, however, manipulate the item in order to determine its nature/criminality. Under Terry, the officer cannot "check for evidence of the crime" -- jewelry -- but in performing the protective patdown, if the officer feels what he immediately identifies as the Rolex watch that was recently reported stolen, he can seize that contraband.

In the traffic stop context, the officer cannot "always check the immediate area for weapons to ensure safety" -- again, he needs reasonable suspicion that the driver/occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon. If that reasonable suspicion exists, the officer can pat down the driver as well as the passenger compartment of the car, once again solely for the safety justification. As a result, the officer would not be able to open, for example, small containers that could not contain a weapon, and the officer would not be able to search the trunk. Terry's brevity requirement is applicable here, so the patdown would have to be administered reasonably expeditiously. As long as this search does not exceed its permissible scope, any evidence of other crimes discovered is admissible under plain view.

The automobile exception allows the officer is to search the entire car, including the trunk, for any evidence of crime, when the officer has probable cause to believe that the car contains such evidence. This search can be carried out either at the scene of the traffic stop, or after the suspect has been arrested and the car has been taken to an impound lot. This violates the contemporaneity requirement of a third vehicle search doctrine -- search incident to arrest -- but is permissible under the auto exception.

Search incident to arrest works in two different ways in the vehicle context. In the first, a similar test to the Terry frisk is applied and officers are allowed to search the passenger compartment for weapons based on reasonable safety concern, and the arrestee is within reaching distance of the compartment. In the second, if the arrestee has been detained and the first application is unavailable, the officer may still search the passenger compartment, but only for evidence related to the crime of arrest and only if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that such evidence is in the vehicle. This exception does not allow the officer to search the trunk, and the search must be executed contemporaneously to the actual arrest (so you can't search it at the impound lot 30 minutes later). You can search it (and the trunk) at the impound lot, however, subject to the inventory exception -- provided that the search is executed in compliance with reasonable procedures/regulations. Additionally, if during the course of the vehicle search incident to arrest (or a similarly constrained Terry vehicle patdown) the officer found evidence that established PC that there was further evidence in the trunk, the auto exception can be triggered and the officer can then search the trunk.

User avatar
August Wilson
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:59 am

Re: Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

Postby August Wilson » Tue May 09, 2017 7:54 am

Caesar Salad wrote:
B90 wrote:
sprinx wrote:Hello Everyone!

I need help with Crim Pro. I'm confused about the difference between the police using the automobile exception and the terry "reasonable suspicion" standard. Under Terry, police can search the passenger compartment of a car for weapons if they had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed or dangerous.

However, the automobile exception says that you need probable cause that the car contains evidence of a crime in order to search the car.

So which is it? Do the police only need the reasonable suspicion to search the car? Or must they have PC? In the alternative, is the automobile exception and Terry doctrine discussing 2 completely different scenarios/situations so both standards are right?

Thanks in advance!

Terry stop (i.e. "stop and frisk") = reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Officer can pat down to check for weapons and to secure evidence (make sure suspect doesnt stab/shoot someone and suspect doesnt toss or destroy the evidence). Officer can always do this to ensure safety.
Officer may only check for evidence of the crime he stopped the suspect for. Officer can only search items that could reasonably contain evidence of the particular crime. For example, if officer suspects a jewelry heist, officer may check for jewelry.

A traffic stop is different because the driver is being stopped for a traffic violation, broken tailight, etc. , not because he is suspected of a other crime (i.e. a jewlry heist). Again, officer can always check the immediate area (only the "wingspan" or where suspect can reach) for weapons to ensure safety. If officer wants to search the car, he must have probable cause to suspect an actual crime. If the driver was stopped for running a red light or a broken taillight, there is no "evidence" to search for.

Does that make sense/clarify things?


I am pretty sure this is a little off. Taking crim pro final in 7 hours, not claiming to be an expert, but this was my understanding:

The only rationale for a Terry frisk/patdown is officer safety. The officer needs to have reasonable suspicion that the person is dangerous/poses a threat in order to justify the patdown. Officers cannot "always do this to ensure safety" and a concern about lost or destroyed evidence is not a valid justification under Terry. During the pat down, the officer may seize items that he feels through the persons clothing if either the criminality of the item is immediately apparent, or the officer identifies it as a weapon. The officer may not, however, manipulate the item in order to determine its nature/criminality. Under Terry, the officer cannot "check for evidence of the crime" -- jewelry -- but in performing the protective patdown, if the officer feels what he immediately identifies as the Rolex watch that was recently reported stolen, he can seize that contraband.

In the traffic stop context, the officer cannot "always check the immediate area for weapons to ensure safety" -- again, he needs reasonable suspicion that the driver/occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon. If that reasonable suspicion exists, the officer can pat down the driver as well as the passenger compartment of the car, once again solely for the safety justification. As a result, the officer would not be able to open, for example, small containers that could not contain a weapon, and the officer would not be able to search the trunk. Terry's brevity requirement is applicable here, so the patdown would have to be administered reasonably expeditiously. As long as this search does not exceed its permissible scope, any evidence of other crimes discovered is admissible under plain view.

The automobile exception allows the officer is to search the entire car, including the trunk, for any evidence of crime, when the officer has probable cause to believe that the car contains such evidence. This search can be carried out either at the scene of the traffic stop, or after the suspect has been arrested and the car has been taken to an impound lot. This violates the contemporaneity requirement of a third vehicle search doctrine -- search incident to arrest -- but is permissible under the auto exception.

Search incident to arrest works in two different ways in the vehicle context. In the first, a similar test to the Terry frisk is applied and officers are allowed to search the passenger compartment for weapons based on reasonable safety concern, and the arrestee is within reaching distance of the compartment. In the second, if the arrestee has been detained and the first application is unavailable, the officer may still search the passenger compartment, but only for evidence related to the crime of arrest and only if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that such evidence is in the vehicle. This exception does not allow the officer to search the trunk, and the search must be executed contemporaneously to the actual arrest (so you can't search it at the impound lot 30 minutes later). You can search it (and the trunk) at the impound lot, however, subject to the inventory exception -- provided that the search is executed in compliance with reasonable procedures/regulations. Additionally, if during the course of the vehicle search incident to arrest (or a similarly constrained Terry vehicle patdown) the officer found evidence that established PC that there was further evidence in the trunk, the auto exception can be triggered and the officer can then search the trunk.


this seems right to me. (also just took crim pro final, so not an expert, but salad captured the differences between a terry stop applied to a traffic stop and an automobile search exception pretty well IMO)

User avatar
Caesar Salad
Posts: 11737
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:06 am

Re: SOLVED Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

Postby Caesar Salad » Tue May 09, 2017 8:08 am

Accidental all nighter before crim pro final 3lol

sprinx
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:43 am

Re: SOLVED Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

Postby sprinx » Tue May 09, 2017 9:38 am

Thanks for the reply but I already had my final last Thursday! I think I handled Terry well on the final though after some extra studying :D

B90
Posts: 521
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

Postby B90 » Tue May 09, 2017 9:58 am

August Wilson wrote:
Caesar Salad wrote:
B90 wrote:
sprinx wrote:Hello Everyone!

I need help with Crim Pro. I'm confused about the difference between the police using the automobile exception and the terry "reasonable suspicion" standard. Under Terry, police can search the passenger compartment of a car for weapons if they had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed or dangerous.

However, the automobile exception says that you need probable cause that the car contains evidence of a crime in order to search the car.

So which is it? Do the police only need the reasonable suspicion to search the car? Or must they have PC? In the alternative, is the automobile exception and Terry doctrine discussing 2 completely different scenarios/situations so both standards are right?

Thanks in advance!

Terry stop (i.e. "stop and frisk") = reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Officer can pat down to check for weapons and to secure evidence (make sure suspect doesnt stab/shoot someone and suspect doesnt toss or destroy the evidence). Officer can always do this to ensure safety.
Officer may only check for evidence of the crime he stopped the suspect for. Officer can only search items that could reasonably contain evidence of the particular crime. For example, if officer suspects a jewelry heist, officer may check for jewelry.

A traffic stop is different because the driver is being stopped for a traffic violation, broken tailight, etc. , not because he is suspected of a other crime (i.e. a jewlry heist). Again, officer can always check the immediate area (only the "wingspan" or where suspect can reach) for weapons to ensure safety. If officer wants to search the car, he must have probable cause to suspect an actual crime. If the driver was stopped for running a red light or a broken taillight, there is no "evidence" to search for.

Does that make sense/clarify things?


I am pretty sure this is a little off. Taking crim pro final in 7 hours, not claiming to be an expert, but this was my understanding:

The only rationale for a Terry frisk/patdown is officer safety. The officer needs to have reasonable suspicion that the person is dangerous/poses a threat in order to justify the patdown. Officers cannot "always do this to ensure safety" and a concern about lost or destroyed evidence is not a valid justification under Terry. During the pat down, the officer may seize items that he feels through the persons clothing if either the criminality of the item is immediately apparent, or the officer identifies it as a weapon. The officer may not, however, manipulate the item in order to determine its nature/criminality. Under Terry, the officer cannot "check for evidence of the crime" -- jewelry -- but in performing the protective patdown, if the officer feels what he immediately identifies as the Rolex watch that was recently reported stolen, he can seize that contraband.

In the traffic stop context, the officer cannot "always check the immediate area for weapons to ensure safety" -- again, he needs reasonable suspicion that the driver/occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon. If that reasonable suspicion exists, the officer can pat down the driver as well as the passenger compartment of the car, once again solely for the safety justification. As a result, the officer would not be able to open, for example, small containers that could not contain a weapon, and the officer would not be able to search the trunk. Terry's brevity requirement is applicable here, so the patdown would have to be administered reasonably expeditiously. As long as this search does not exceed its permissible scope, any evidence of other crimes discovered is admissible under plain view.

The automobile exception allows the officer is to search the entire car, including the trunk, for any evidence of crime, when the officer has probable cause to believe that the car contains such evidence. This search can be carried out either at the scene of the traffic stop, or after the suspect has been arrested and the car has been taken to an impound lot. This violates the contemporaneity requirement of a third vehicle search doctrine -- search incident to arrest -- but is permissible under the auto exception.

Search incident to arrest works in two different ways in the vehicle context. In the first, a similar test to the Terry frisk is applied and officers are allowed to search the passenger compartment for weapons based on reasonable safety concern, and the arrestee is within reaching distance of the compartment. In the second, if the arrestee has been detained and the first application is unavailable, the officer may still search the passenger compartment, but only for evidence related to the crime of arrest and only if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that such evidence is in the vehicle. This exception does not allow the officer to search the trunk, and the search must be executed contemporaneously to the actual arrest (so you can't search it at the impound lot 30 minutes later). You can search it (and the trunk) at the impound lot, however, subject to the inventory exception -- provided that the search is executed in compliance with reasonable procedures/regulations. Additionally, if during the course of the vehicle search incident to arrest (or a similarly constrained Terry vehicle patdown) the officer found evidence that established PC that there was further evidence in the trunk, the auto exception can be triggered and the officer can then search the trunk.


this seems right to me. (also just took crim pro final, so not an expert, but salad captured the differences between a terry stop applied to a traffic stop and an automobile search exception pretty well IMO)



Salad is right. When I reread what I posted, I realize I oversimplified. Saying that an officer can "always" pat down to ensure safety was misleading. If the officer is arresting the person, his safety is an issue because of the close contact, so the officer can check for weapons. In order to stop in the first place, there must be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
There doesn't need to be probable cause (like you need for a warrant), just reasonable suspicion.
When I talked about searching the immediate area during a traffic stop, I did accidently make it sound like a cop can "always" do that. Of course, as salad pointed out, there does need to reasonable suspicion that there are weapons and that the person can gain access to them. That's where the "immediate area/wingspan" qualification comes from. I did gloss over that and salad pointed out some important points.
Sorry if I mislead anyone. It's been 2 years since I took crim pro. :oops:
Thanks, salad, for correcting me/pointing out what I missed. I know that future students look at these posts and they are not helpful if they ars not accurate.
Good luck on finals, everyone!

sprinx
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:43 am

Re: SOLVED Crim Pro: Terry Doctrine vs. Automobile Exception

Postby sprinx » Wed May 10, 2017 10:48 am

Thanks for the clarification everyone! I made sure that my outline had the requirement of reasonable suspicion of armed and dangerous to frisk. Professor was very clear on that.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests