Cited by

o the warrant requirement is the so-called “automobile exception,” which “allows the warrantless search of an automobile, including containers within, provided an officer has probable cause to 10 STATE v. SHWAR Decision of the Court believe contraband or evidence will be found.” -3, ¶¶ 7-8 (2016).

¶6 While searches and seizures generally require warrants, ¶ 7 (2016), a warrantless seizure will still be considered reasonable under the “plain view doctrine,” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 372, 374–75 (1993).

comports with the Fourth Amendment is a mixed question of law and fact that [this court] reviews de novo.” ¶ 6 (2016) (citations omitted).

“Whether the probable cause determination here comports with the Fourth Amendment is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.” ¶ 6 (2016).

¶¶ 8-11 (2016) (the smell of marijuana provides probable cause for a warrantless search of a vehicle under the automobile exception).

3 STATE v. PRINGLE Decision of the Court abuse of discretion.” ¶ 6 (2016) ( ¶ 9 (2015)).

State v. Cheatham , , ¶ 6

See State v. Cheatham , , ¶ 6, ; see also Miller v. Fenton , 474 U.S. 104 , 113-15, 106 S.Ct.

“An error of law constitutes an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 6 (2016).

¶¶ 8-10 (2016) (despite the passage of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, the smell of marijuana established probable cause that a vehicle contained evidence of criminal activity); see also Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371-72 (2003) (finding probable cause to arrest all three occupants of a car when officers

A warrantless search is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "subject to a 'few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.'" ¶ 7 (2016) (citation omitted) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)).

¶ 13 (2014); ¶ 6 (2016).