## Facts

- Federal and local officers conducted a year-long investigation into David Kelly Jr.’s cocaine distribution in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia.
- A magistrate judge issued arrest warrants for Kelly and two alleged co-conspirators and search warrants for Kelly’s residence and a commercial property; the residential warrant did not mention any vehicles.
- Officers surveilled Kelly’s residence and later observed Kelly’s dark green Lexus sedan parked on the public street in front of the home.
- Agents executed the warrants at the residence, arrested Kelly, and secured the scene; officers also possessed the Lexus’s ignition key.
- After the arrest, officers conducted an exterior canine sniff of the Lexus; the dog alerted to the passenger compartment.
- Officers searched the passenger compartment and found no drugs, then searched the trunk and discovered cocaine and ecstasy.
- Kelly moved to suppress the drugs seized from the Lexus as the product of an unconstitutional warrantless search; the district court denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Kelly of drug conspiracy and multiple possession-with-intent-to-distribute counts, and the district court imposed a life sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the automobile exception permits a warrantless search of a vehicle parked on a public street when officers have probable cause but have arrested the occupants and possess the vehicle’s keys, or whether a separate exigency showing is required.
2. Whether probable cause supporting a vehicle search under the automobile exception permits officers to search the trunk after a canine alert and an unsuccessful search of the passenger compartment.
3. Whether any of Kelly’s additional appellate challenges warranted reversal.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Kelly’s suppression motion and affirmed his convictions.
- The court held that the automobile exception does not require any exigency beyond the vehicle’s inherent mobility once probable cause exists.
- The court held that probable cause authorized a search of every part of the vehicle capable of concealing contraband, including the trunk.
- The court rejected Kelly’s remaining claims and found no reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- Under the automobile exception, officers may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle when they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband.
- The automobile exception has no additional, case-specific exigency requirement beyond the inherent mobility of a vehicle; police control over the occupants or possession of the keys does not eliminate the exception.
- When probable cause supports a vehicle search, officers may search all areas and containers within the vehicle where the object of the search could be hidden, including the trunk.
- A canine alert may contribute to probable cause that contraband is located somewhere in the vehicle, even if an initial search of the alerted area yields no drugs.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the warrantless search of Kelly’s Lexus under the automobile exception, holding that probable cause justified searching the entire vehicle, including the trunk, and that no separate exigency was required merely because officers had secured the occupants and the keys.


United States v. Kelly, 592 F.3d 586 (4th Cir. 2010)