55 N.Y.2d 49 (1982)

A warrantless search of an automobile is permissible when police have probable cause to believe it contains weapons, contraband, or evidence, even if the vehicle is under their control at the police station.

Summary

Belton was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, finding that a warrantless search of Belton’s car at the police station was justified. The court reasoned that probable cause existed based on a passenger’s admission to possessing forged prescriptions, providing grounds to search the car for further evidence. The court emphasized that the authority to search an automobile doesn’t necessarily require obtaining a warrant, even when the vehicle is under police control. The discovery of the weapon during the search was therefore admissible.

Facts

Police stopped Belton’s car and had probable cause to detain and question a passenger who was riding in the back seat.

The passenger admitted to the police that he had left an attache case containing additional forged prescriptions on the rear seat of the car.

The police then searched the car at the police station, finding a gun, which led to Belton’s conviction for criminal possession of a weapon.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted Belton.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether a warrantless search of Belton’s automobile at the police station was improper, given that the police did not have probable cause to compel Belton to accompany them to the police station or to detain him once he arrived there.

Holding

No, because the passenger’s admission to the police that he had left an attaché case containing additional forged prescriptions on the rear seat of the car furnished the predicate for the police to return to the car and search it in order to retrieve the case. The authority of the police to search the car did not come to an end when they located and seized the case, since the passenger’s admission formed reasonable ground to believe that he had secreted additional, undisclosed evidence or contraband somewhere in the car.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the passenger’s admission provided probable cause to believe the car contained further evidence or contraband.

The court cited Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, stating that there is ordinarily no requirement that the police delay their search until they obtain a warrant, even where the vehicle has been reduced to their control. The court recognized an exception to the warrant requirement for automobile searches based on probable cause.

The court emphasized that the authority to search an automobile arises when there is probable cause to believe that it contains weapons, contraband, or evidence.

The court stated: “The authority of the police to search an automobile usually arises when there is probable cause to believe that it contains weapons, contraband or evidence, and there is ordinarily no requirement that the police delay their search until they obtain a warrant, even where the vehicle has been reduced to their control.”