Explaining The Case And Its Conclusion: Carroll V. United States (Research Paper Sample)

Closed Container
Name
Institution
Professor
Date
Carroll v. United States
In Carroll v United States officers from the federal prohibition were undercover and were trying to purchase illicit alcohol from George Carroll who was under investigation, the transaction between the two parties was however not complete and the suspect left. The prohibition officers came across Carroll and another individual called Kiro, driving from Detroit while travelling through the highway that leads to the Grand Rapids which was a route that the officers patrolled regularly. The prohibition officers upon noticing the suspect pursued him and pulled them over after which they proceeded to search the car, without a warranty, and found illegal alcohol hidden behind the steering wheel (Carmen & Hemmens, 2010).
The court ruled that officers of the law may conduct a search with no warrant of a vehicle stopped in traffic if the officers have objectively reasonable cause to believe that a suspect’s vehicle contains evidence or contraband, this was in service to the national prohibition act. The search without a warrant is allowed based on the fact that a vehicle that is stopped on traffic can be moved quickly out of the jurisdiction of the investigating agency and therefore there would not be sufficient time to acquire a warrant that would approve for a search of the vehicle. The court also added that it would be unreasonable to authorize prohibition officers to stop and search every vehicle on the chance that they might find illicit alcohol, which would inconvenience citizens using the highway who have a right to travel the roads freely without undue interruption unless a competent officer determines that there is an objectively reasonable cause that the vehicle is transporting illicit products. In the case of Carroll, the officers had a right to stop and search the vehicle because he was a suspect and therefore they had probable cause to search the vehicle (Bloom, 2003).
The results of the case of Carroll v United States could have an impact on the ethical behavior of police officers. The court ruling sets the precedence of police officers being allowed to search vehicles without the need for a warrant. Officers might take this opportunity to exploit the law by stopping and searching vehicles because of stereotypical biases that they hold or other unethical ...