Connection lost
Server error
California v. Acevedo Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Police had probable cause to believe a paper bag in a car’s trunk contained marijuana. The Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of the bag was constitutional, establishing a single rule for searching containers found in vehicles.
Legal Significance: This case eliminated the warrant requirement for closed containers found in automobiles when police have probable cause to search the container, resolving the doctrinal conflict between United States v. Ross and Arkansas v. Sanders and creating a single, unified automobile exception.
California v. Acevedo Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Police officers observed Charles Acevedo leave an apartment, known for drug activity, carrying a brown paper bag that appeared to contain marijuana. Acevedo placed the bag in the trunk of his car and started to drive away. The officers, who had probable cause to believe the bag contained contraband but lacked probable cause to search the entire vehicle, stopped the car. Without obtaining a warrant, they opened the trunk and then searched the paper bag, discovering marijuana. Acevedo moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that while the police could seize the bag, they needed a warrant to open it under the precedent of United States v. Chadwick and Arkansas v. Sanders. The California Court of Appeal agreed, holding that because probable cause was limited to the container and not the car itself, a warrant was required. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to reexamine the law governing searches of closed containers in automobiles.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment require police to obtain a warrant to search a closed container located in a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe the container, but not the vehicle itself, holds contraband?
No. The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant to search a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis au
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Fourth Amendment require police to obtain a warrant to search a closed container located in a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe the container, but not the vehicle itself, holds contraband?
Conclusion
This decision simplified the automobile exception by establishing one clear rule for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nos
Legal Rule
Police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in vo
Legal Analysis
The Court resolved a significant conflict in its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence regarding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consect
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: Police may conduct a warrantless search of a container within