United States v. Scott, No. 11-10529 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance and a firearm. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of these crimes that was discovered in the subsequent warrantless search of his car. The government presented its substantive arguments orally at the suppression hearing and in its written response to the magistrate judge's Report, and therefore the court held that those arguments were preserved for appeal. Moreover, because the police had probable cause to suspect that evidence of a crime would be found in defendant's car, which had the potential for mobility and was being used as a licensed motor vehicle, the court held that the government's warrantless search of defendant's car was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Therefore, defendant's motion to suppress should not have been granted and the court reversed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed the district court’s order suppressing evidence discovered in a warrantless search of the defendant’s car. The panel held that the defendant did not waive or forfeit his argument that the government waived its own argument that the search was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The panel also held that the government did not waive its automobile exception argument. The panel held that because the police had probable cause to suspect that evidence of a crime would be found in the defendant’s car, which had the potential for mobility and was being used as a licensed motor vehicle, the government’s warrantless search of the defendant’s car was permissible under the automobile exception. Judge Rawlinson concurred in the result because, and only because, neither the magistrate judge nor the district court judge made a finding that the government had waived its arguments regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.