Your supervising attorney has a client, Nick Nicely, who owns a recreational vehicle. The RV can be hooked up to his truck and taken camping if he chooses. Nick has come to the firm because the police conducted a warrantless search of his RV and located several pounds of marijuana. His previous attorney had him released from jail, but said that the warrantless search could not be grounds for the evidence to be thrown out. At the time of the search, the RV was sitting in the backyard of Nickâ€™s friend, Mark. The RV was not hooked up to Nickâ€™s truck, and had two flat tires, thus it was immoveable at the time.
Locate and read the following two cases in Lexis:
- United States v. Adams, 845 F. Supp. 1531 (1994)
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)
Discuss the ways in which each case is similar and different from our fact pattern. Which case precedent do you think a court would follow in our case? Would the court decide that the RV was a residence and thus the search unlawful, or that it is a vehicle and thus no warrant was necessary?
In a response to your peers, you should argue the opposite of their conclusion.
- If your peer believes our court would follow Adams, argue that it should follow Carney, and the reasons why.
- If your peer believes our court would follow Carney, argue that it should follow Adams, and the reasons why.