Carroll v. United States held that the measure of legality for a vehicle seizure is that the officer has probable cause to believe the automobile contains contraband liquor. Which option best completes this belief?

Carroll v. United States held that the measure of legality for a vehicle seizure is that the officer has probable cause to believe the automobile contains contraband liquor. Which option best completes this belief?

• A. Reasonable suspicion
• B. Probable cause
• C. Absolute certainty
• D. A warrant

Answer: (B)

Under Carroll v. United States, the legality of a vehicle seizure hinges on probable cause that the vehicle contains contraband. This is the standard that justifies warrantless seizures and searches in the automobile context because cars can be moved quickly and waiting for a warrant could allow the evidence to disappear. Probable cause means there are enough facts or reasonable inferences to lead a prudent person to believe contraband is inside the vehicle. Reasonable suspicion is too low a threshold for this purpose, and absolute certainty is not required or realistically attainable. A warrant would not be necessary only because probable cause exists under the automobile exception.

Under Carroll v. United States, the legality of a vehicle seizure hinges on probable cause that the vehicle contains contraband. This is the standard that justifies warrantless seizures and searches in the automobile context because cars can be moved quickly and waiting for a warrant could allow the evidence to disappear. Probable cause means there are enough facts or reasonable inferences to lead a prudent person to believe contraband is inside the vehicle. Reasonable suspicion is too low a threshold for this purpose, and absolute certainty is not required or realistically attainable. A warrant would not be necessary only because probable cause exists under the automobile exception.