The dissent argues that this is contrary to the bright line rule established in Katz v. United States and that the majority opinion violates the protection of privacy rights provided by the Fourth Amendment.

Police were watching him, and a youth he was talking to walked with him to his motor home on a parking lot in downtown San Diego.

The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that there is a greater expectation of privacy in a motor home when also used for living quarters, so the automobile exception did not apply.

"The capacity to be 'quickly moved' was clearly the basis of the holding in Carroll, and our cases have consistently recognized ready mobility as one of the principal bases of the automobile exception."

In addition, "'[b]esides the element of mobility, less rigorous warrant requirements govern because the expectation of privacy with respect to one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office.'"