Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court applied the Carroll doctrine^[1] in a case with a significant factual difference—the search took place after the vehicle was moved to the stationhouse. The search was thus delayed and did not take place on the highway (or street) as in Carroll.^[2] After a gas station robbery, a vehicle fitting the description of the robbers' car was stopped. Inside were people wearing clothing matching the description of that worn by the robbers. They were arrested, and the car was taken to the police station where it was later searched.

Section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) of 1959 forbids any member of the Communist Party from serving as an executive officer of a labor union, with the goal of preventing politically-motivated strikes that would pose a danger to the national economy. Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Surrender procedures between Member States — Decisions rendered at the end of proceedings in which the person concerned has not appeared in person — Execution of a sentence pronounced in absentia — Possibility of review of the judgment. Case C‑399/11.

Wizardry Online is a re-imagining of the classic RPG originally developed by Sir-Tech. Gamepot, Inc. And Sony Online Entertainment have brought a whole new MMO component to the series in Wizardry. Wizardry Online is a free-to-play massively multiplayer game where the difficulty is insane, the dungeons are brutal, there is no auto-healing, crimes taint your soul, allies can betray you at any. Sony's fantasy multiplayer online role playing game Wizardry Online has launched for US and EU players. It's billed as the most harcore MMO ever, and it's certainly no World of Warcraft. 'Perma-death' is a feature of the Wizardry Online - so you are at risk of losing your character forever if you die. Wizardry online official site website.

Opinion of the Court[edit]

The Court first held that the search could not be sustained as a search incident to arrest (SITA). It quoted at length from Carroll that a search of a movable vehicle is treated differently under the Fourth Amendment because the mobility of the vehicle alone can easily defeat the warrant requirement.^[3] If there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains criminal evidence and there exist exigent circumstances where the vehicle can be removed from the jurisdiction, a warrantless search would be reasonable.^[4] It made no constitutional difference here that the search followed the seizure because the probable cause which developed on the street still existed at the station house (where the vehicle was impounded).^[5] For this purpose, it is significant to note that the automobile exception and the SITA doctrine are quite different.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

1. ^SeeCarroll v. United States, 267U.S.132 (1925).
2. ^Compare Preston v. United States, 376U.S.364 (1964), and Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391U.S.216 (1968), where the Court held that a search incident could not be conducted later at the stationhouse.
3. ^Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. at 48-49, quoting Carroll, 267 U.S. at 153-54.
4. ^Chambers, 399 U.S. at 50-51: But the circumstances that furnish probable cause to search a particular auto for particular articles are most often unforeseeable; moreover, the opportunity to search is fleeting since a car is readily movable. Where this is true, as in Carroll and the case before us now, if an effective search is to be made at any time, either the search must be made immediately without a warrant or the car itself must be seized and held without a warrant for whatever period is necessary to obtain a warrant for the search. See also id. at 51 n. 9.
5. ^Chambers, 399 U.S. at 52. Compare United States v. Edwards, 415U.S.800 (1974) (overruled on other grounds by United States v. Chadwick, 433U.S.1 (1977) and diverged from by California v. Acevedo, 500U.S.565 (1991) (a delayed seizure of clothing from an arrestee was not an unreasonable search), and United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397U.S.249 (1970) (delay of mail in transit to allow probable cause to develop).

Further reading[edit]

Chambers is discussed in:

• Note, 75 Dick L Rev 511 (1971);
• Note, 46 Ind L J 257 (1971);
• Comment, 47 Notre Dame Law 668 (1972);
• Note, 7 Tulsa L J 197 (1971);
• Note, 23 Vand L Rev 1370 (1970).
• Heisse, Warrantless Automobile Searches and Telephonic Search Warrants: Should the Automobile Exception be Redrawn?, 7 Hast Const L Q 1031 (1980).

External links[edit]

• Text of Chambers v. Maroney, 399U.S. 42 (1970) is available from: JustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)