ehh, its pretty complicated. I bet the camper, if used for living purposes, would have the most protection (or a motor home being towed). Generally, areas where a driver doesn't have immediate access to in the vehicle are harder to justify searches of. And vehicles are easier to search than homes due to less expectation of privacy and that they probably aren't used to live in.
But here's some shit from a law review detailing some rulings. Skip tot the end if you don't care, where they talk about specifics of camper searches and the like:
Quote:
In Pennsylvania v. Labron, 116 S. Ct. 2485 (1996) (per curiam) overruling the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held that the ready mobility of a vehicle and probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, without more, is all that is required to satisfy the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
Id. at 2487; see also U.S. v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12 (1977) (automobile exception partially based on impracticality of obtaining warrant given "inherent mobility" of vehicles), overruled on other grounds by California v. Acevedo, SOO U.S. 565 (1991); Carroll, 267 U.S. at 153 (warrantless search of vehicle valid because securing warrant impractical when vehicle readily removable from jurisdiction); Pinkney v. Keane, 920 F.2d 1090, 1099-1100 (2d Cir. 1990) (exigent circumstances justifying warrantless search of vehicle existed when petitioner likely to drive away after treatment in hospital emergency room); U.S. v. Reed, 26 F.3d 523, 530 (5th Cir. 1994) (exigent circumstances justifying warrantless search of vehicle existed when officers not certain how many sets of keys to car existed and vehicle vulnerable to efforts of others who might escape with evidence); U.S. v. Markling, 7 F.3d 1309, 1319 (7th Cir. 1993) (exigent circumstances justifying warrantless search of vehicle existed when defendant's friends or associates might move car at any time); U.S. v. Martin, 806 F.2d 204, 207 (8th Cir. 1986) (exigent circumstances justifying warrantless search of vehicle existed when owners aware of investigation and truck readily accessible to public street); U.S. v. Forker, 928 F.2d 365, 369 (llth Cir. 1991) (exigent circumstances justifying warrantless search of vehicle existed when officers not certain how many sets of keys to car existed or whether car would remain in parking lot if left to obtain warrant, had not apprehended all suspects or other people involved in conspiracy, and vehicle vulnerable to efforts of defendant's cohorts to seize or destroy evidence). The exigent circumstances rationale based on the inherent mobility of vehicles extends to mobile homes. See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 392-94 (1985). In Carney, a stationary mobile home was in a public parking lot when DEA agents conducted a warrantless search. Id. at 388. The Court found such a search reasonable as long as an objective observer could believe that the home was being used as a vehicle rather than a residence. Id. at 394. The Court listed certain factors that indicate whether a stationary mobile home is being used as a residence or as a vehicle including whether the mobile home is on blocks, licensed, connected to utilities, or located near a public road. Id. at 394 n.3; see U.S. v. Ervin, 907 F.2d 1534, 1538 (5th Cir. 1990) (warrantless search of camper-trailer valid because parked in hotel parking lot, defendant not using trailer as home, and trailer attached to car and readily mobile); U.S. v. Markham, 844 F.2d 366, 369 (6th Cir. 1988) (warrantless search of motor home valid even though parked in private driveway because motor home on wheels, license plates from out-of-state, driveway opened onto public street, and no utility lines connected to motor home); U.S. v. Hamilton, 792 F.2d 837, 842-43 (9th Cir. 1986) (warrantless search of mobile home valid even though parked in private driveway and connected to house by extension cord because easy access to public road rendered motor home more mobile than permanent); cf U.S. v. Hill, 855 F.2d 664, 668 (lOth Cir. 1988) (warrantless search of houseboat valid because readily mobile and had been travelling up and down lake).
|