Florida v. White

Background

Police watched a man use his car to deliver cocaine on several occasions and developed probable cause that the vehicle was forfeitable under Florida’s Contraband Forfeiture Act. Months later, after arresting him on unrelated charges, officers seized his car from his employer’s parking lot without getting a warrant. During an inventory search of the seized car, officers found cocaine, and the man was charged. Lower courts split on whether a warrant was required, and the Florida Supreme Court said a warrant was necessary.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court asked whether the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant before seizing a vehicle in a public place when officers have probable cause that the car itself is forfeitable contraband. The majority relied on historical practice and previous decisions that treated movable contraband and public seizures differently from home seizures. It concluded that when a vehicle in a public place is subject to forfeiture and officers have probable cause, a warrant is not required to seize it.

Real world impact

Law enforcement can seize vehicles in public without a warrant if they have probable cause that the vehicle is forfeitable under state law. Vehicle owners face a greater risk of prompt seizure in similar circumstances. The Court noted but did not decide whether long delays between probable cause and seizure could make probable cause stale.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring opinion warned against reading the ruling as a blanket approval of every new forfeiture law. A dissent argued the warrant requirement should remain a strong presumption and criticized the delay and lack of exigent circumstances in this case.