United States v. Adams - 845 F. Supp. 1531 (M.D. Fla. 1994)

Rule:

A warrantless search based on probable cause is per se illegal, unless the government shows that it falls into one of the few limited and well-defined exceptions recognized by law. These exceptions include the vehicle exception, search incident to lawful arrest, and seizure as evidence of a crime.

Facts:

The defendants were arrested by Special Agent Dennis L. Trubey of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Linda S. Perkins of the Florida Highway Patrol, pursuant to arrest warrants, outside of their motor home located in a "wooded area of a rural section of southern Suwanee County." Once the Defendants were in custody and the area was secured, the police conducted an investigative inspection and inventory search of the entire contents of the motor home. Information obtained from this search revealed to police that Defendants leased several storage facilities because of “restrictive storage limitations of the Defendants living in a mobile recreational camper type vehicle.” Based upon this information, as elicited through Special Agent Trubey's affidavits, the police acquired warrants to search the Defendants' storage facilities. The Defendants sought to suppress the evidence seized from their motor home as an illegal warrantless search of their home and the evidence discovered at the storage facilities under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The Government attempted to justify these searches under (1) the vehicle exception, (2) search incident to lawful arrest, or (3) seizure as evidence of a crime and inventory search exception. The Government added that if the search of the motor home was illegal, the subsequent searches of the storage facilities under search warrants were in good faith reliance on the magistrate's finding of probable cause.

Issue:

1. Was the warrantless search valid under (1) the vehicle exception, (2) search incident to lawful arrest, or (3) seizure as evidence of a crime and inventory search exception? 
2. Assuming that the search was illegal, did the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to the issuance of the storage facilities' search warrant? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court granted defendants' motion to suppress evidence seized from their motor home, which resulted in warrants to search their storage facilities. The court held that although the motor home was readily mobile because of its inherent ability to function, it was so situated that an objective observer was able to conclude that it was not being used for transportation, but as a residence. Accordingly, the vehicle exception did not justify the warrantless search. Further, the justification for the vehicle exception--that passengers of vehicles have a reduced expectation of privacy--was not present. The inventory search was not justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest or under the protective sweep exception to the warrant requirement, as the search extended beyond what was authorized under the circumstances after the exigent circumstances ceased to exist. An inventory search of the motor home that was being used as a residence was not valid as a search as evidence of a crime. The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply to the issuance of the storage facilities' search warrant, as reliance upon the judge's probable cause determination was unreasonable.