What is the current state of the law on warrantless seizures of cars by police?

In People v. Teale (1969) 70 Cal.2d 497, 75 Cal.Rptr. 172, 450 P.2d 564, we upheld the warrantless seizure of an automobile in which police had cause to think that the victim was shot. The officers had seized the car incident to a lawful arrest and 10 days later a criminalist examined the car and found the victim's blood spattered on the interior. We found no violation of the Fourth Amendment and, in fact, no search, since the automobile was itself evidence subject to seizure. (Id. at pp. 508-511, 75 Cal.Rptr. 172, 450 P.2d 564.) We quoted our earlier language with approval: " '[W]hen the police lawfully seize a car which is itself evidence of a crime rather than merely a container of incriminating articles, they may postpone searching it until arrival at a time and place in which the examination can be performed in accordance with sound scientific procedures.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 508, 75 Cal.Rptr. 172, 450 P.2d 564, italics in original.)

In North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301, 104 Cal.Rptr. 833, 502 P.2d 1305, we applied the Teale rationale to uphold another search. There, the defendant was arrested in his apartment on kidnapping and assault charges. The police impounded his automobile, having cause to believe that it had been used in the kidnapping. They examined its interior without a warrant, and found the victim's fingerprints. We explained that the defendant's car had been seized "contemporaneous with petitioner's arrest, as evidence of the alleged kidnapping; the car was believed to be the very instrumentality used to commit the kidnapping." [46 Cal.3d 1025] (Id. at p. 306, 104 Cal.Rptr. 833, 502 P.2d 1305, fn. omitted.) The car was simply a piece of evidence in plain view which the police were justified in seizing.