Sleeper: domicile?

That is true and the argument for an RV is a bit different. If you are smuggling drugs in an RV and are stopped, the vehicle exception would apply. I think where you could call it a domicile is when it's parked in say an RV park, or a KOA. Something where you have a sewer hookup. There is a lot of case law that goes both ways on it. It all depends on what jurisdiction you're in.

 

actually my father used it for his RV while on the road during a traffic stop in Cal.

they pissed him off and he refused to let them search.

was legal. all they can search is within arms reach of the drivers door.

otherwise they need to be invited in or have a search warrant

he's been RV'ing for over 20 yrs.

don't mess with a Texan.lol

 

Domicile is a place, not a thing.

It is a person's fixed, permanent and principal home. Some one mentioned an RV. An RV, or for that matter a cardboard box can be a domicile if it is a person's fixed, permanent and principal home. If an RV'er has no principal residence he can claim a particular location to be his domicile (Usually state where it is registered and tagged) and while he is traveling new locations can be considered temporary residences, but his domicile for legal purposes will not change because of his travels.

Best regards

 

View attachment 43359

 

Nope fat fingers while typing on a da mn smart phone is my enemy. Then not proof reading and correcting my mistakes is because it just aint that crucial in my life to please everyones delicate temperament to spelling mistakes on a forum.

Sent from somewhere out there

 

ah, ok. lol

just trying to be a smart arse.sorry

 

Me too. Lol

Sent from somewhere out there

 

I wrote a legal memo on this issue a number of years ago. It is my opinion that a Court would not find the sleeper berth to have the same protection under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, as it would with a fixed domicile. There were some appellate cases a number of years ago where motor home owners argued that they had Fourth Amendment protection akin to owners of a fixed location domicile. The Courts disagreed, citing that the mobile nature of the unit warranted less protection due to the ability to move evidence from the jurisdiction while trying to obtain a warrant. Warrantless searches of automobiles have been allowed when incident to a lawful arrest to the extent necessary to protect the officers.

Warrantless searches of commercial vehicles subject to heavy commercial regulation would likely to be allowed, even in the absence of probably cause when made incident to a random roadside inspection.

I do not profess any great knowledge of constitutional law, however I believe my analysis is incorrect, even though I personally believe that searches of sleeper berths should be subject to the same standards for searches of fixed location homes.

Paul Taylor
Truckers Justice Center
www.truckersjustice.com

 

I do not think Chimel is on point. That involved a search incident to a lawful arrest and held that the search was not reasonable because it went beyond the area necessary to protect the arresting officer. In the case of the CMV, the search still involved a commerical vehicle. Additionally, the search of the entire vehicle including the sleeper berth would probably be construed as reasonable in order to preserve evidence, to wit: if the vehicle could be moved, evidence could be destroyed while the officers were waiting for a warrant. Note - The Constitution does not prohibit warrantless searches. It prohibits unreasonable sources. The Court today is much more conservative that it was in 1969 when Chimel was decided. When it comes to criminal issues there are no liberals (in general) on the Supreme Court anymore.

I could be subsequently proved wrong, but that is why I am not a judge and instead just a lowly trial attorney.

Paul Taylor
www.truckersjusticecenter.com