Highway Hideaways: Meth, Mayhem, and the Motor Vehicle Exception

United States v. Hays, No. 22-3294 (7th Cir. 2024)

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently considered the permissibility of a warrantless search of a vehicle while examining the reach of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment in?United States v. Hays.

The defendant, Charles Hays, was stopped by the police while driving, and his passenger was found in possession of methamphetamine. The police officers then searched the vehicle’s interior but found no drugs. However, under the hood of the car, inside the air filter, they discovered more methamphetamine. Hays was indicted and later moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that the officers did not have probable cause to search under the hood and in the air filter. The district court denied his motion, and Hays pleaded guilty. Unwilling to accept the outcome of the lower court, Hays appealed to the Seventh Circuit, contending that the officers did not have probable cause to search under the hood and in the air filter of his vehicle. Reaching the Seventh Circuit on appeal, the court was unpersuaded by the defendant’s argument and ultimately affirmed the district court’s decision.

In October 2019, the Illinois State Police (ISP) received information indicating that an individual known as “Chuck” was involved in distributing methamphetamine in Christian County. This led to increased surveillance efforts in areas suspected of being involved in drug trafficking. During this period, ISP agents spotted a silver Cadillac at one of these locations, which was found to be registered to Brenda Berger. The driver, identified as her son, Charles Hays, became a subject of interest. On the evening of October 15, 2019, ISP Inspector Evert Nation noticed the same Cadillac driving toward Taylorville, Illinois, with non-functional taillights. Nation informed Taylorville’s Police Chief, Dwayne Wheeler, about the vehicle. Chief Wheeler then observed the car for himself, noting its illegal window tints and how it twice crossed the centerline. Based on these observations, he initiated a traffic stop with the help of Officer Jeremy Alwerdt.

The situation escalated when Officer Alwerdt recognized the passenger, Tamera Wisnasky, from prior encounters and was aware that she had an outstanding arrest warrant. Wisnasky attempted to hide her identity and was seen trying to conceal a glass pipe, a common tool for smoking methamphetamine. Her attempt to swallow a plastic container, which Officer Alwerdt forced her to spit out, revealed it to be filled with suspected methamphetamine, leading to her arrest. Charles Hays showed serious signs of nervousness during the stop. His attempt to misidentify Wisnasky, along with his admission of a history with drug offenses, added to the officers’ suspicions. This prompted a thorough search of the Cadillac. Although the initial search inside the passenger area returned nothing, a screwdriver found in the center console suggested the possibility of hidden compartments. This led to the discovery of methamphetamine in the air filter housing, which was accessible with a screwdriver. Following these discoveries, Hays was charged but contested the legality of the search that led to the seizure of methamphetamine, specifically the search under the hood and inside the air filter housing. Despite his motion to suppress the evidence being denied in district court, Hays pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

At the heart of today’s case is the Mobile Conveyance Exception (also known as the Carroll Doctrine). This doctrine is a cornerstone of the Fourth Amendment, permitting officers to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles under certain conditions. The requirements, as established by?Carroll v. United States, include the officer’s lawful access to the vehicle, the vehicle being readily mobile, and the existence of probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. Importantly, this doctrine allows for the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents, including both locked and unlocked containers, if there’s probable cause to believe they could contain the object of the search.

The question considered by the Seventh Circuit was whether the Mobile Conveyance Exception, or Carroll Doctrine, permits an officer to search under the hood of a vehicle when drugs are found in possession of a passenger. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings, holding that under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, officers may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle, including all parts where there is a fair probability contraband could be concealed, as long as there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of illegal activity.

The court found that the totality of the circumstances—specifically, the passenger’s possession of methamphetamine, Charles Hays’s history of drug-related arrests, and the presence of a screwdriver in the vehicle (a tool known for its use in concealing drugs in vehicles)—gave officers a reasonable belief that methamphetamine could be hidden anywhere in the car, including under its hood.        

The court’s analysis relied on established precedents like?United States v. McGuire, which clarified that discovering contraband on a passenger can indeed provide probable cause to search the vehicle more extensively. The court clarified that this point is critical, as it dismisses the relevance of distinguishing between drivers and passengers in the context of probable cause. Both the driver and passengers may be involved in a common enterprise, having a mutual interest in concealing evidence of their misconduct.

This case reaffirms the validity of the automobile exception and its application based on the presence of probable cause, underscored by specific, articulable facts. For law enforcement officers, it serves as a reminder of the necessity to thoroughly assess and document the circumstances that lead to the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime is present in a vehicle.

Carroll v. United States (1925)

United States v. McGuire (2019)

United States v. Hays, No. 22-3294 (7th Cir. 2024)