•  
  •  
 

Ilse Ghent

Keywords

fourth amendment, privacy, warrant, searches, warrantless searches, California v. Carney, home, mobile home, vehicles, residence, vanlife

Abstract

From the time of the Revolutionary War, United States citizens have prioritized one thing over almost everything else: that “a man’s house is his castle.” This is immortalized in the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable and warrantless searches. The protections granted by the Fourth Amendment are not centered around the rights a person has in their property. Instead, “the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property.” This protection is so important that the Supreme Court has been explicitly clear that warrantless searches should only be permitted in the most “exceptional” of circumstances. One way in which Fourth Amendment protections have been diminished is through the broad application of the “vehicle exception” to warrant requirements. At its inception, the vehicle exception applied only to traditional vehicles. However, as time went on, states did not uniformly apply the vehicle exception and were specifically divided regarding whether the exception should apply to motor homes. In order to resolve the disparate application, the Supreme Court stepped in with its decision in California v. Carney in 1985. The Court held in this case that any home that has wheels could be considered a vehicle under this exception. The only real check on this rule is that the Court instructed lower courts to only apply this rule in cases where the motor home functioned more like an automobile than a residence. Unfortunately, this standard is very confusing in application and does not consider motor homes that are equal parts automobile and residence.

This Note will describe the Court’s relevant decisions regarding the Fourth Amendment, leading to the decision to apply the vehicle exception to motor homes in California v. Carney. It will also suggest factors the Court should adopt to determine whether a motor home is considered a residence or a vehicle, in lieu of Carney’s confusing precedent. Necessarily, Part II will cover the general principles of the Fourth Amendment, the vehicle exception, and its application to motor homes through Carney. Part III will explain the modern-day reasons that the Carney decision should be revisited, including informal housing, the #VanLife practice of living in a van as one’s residence as well as their vehicle, and other non-traditional housing in a modern setting. Part III will also introduce the list of possible factors this Note suggests should replace the Carney decision.

Download

Share

COinS