citizens. Id. at 149, 45 S.Ct. 280. The Carroll Court’s conclusion was premised, at least in part, on the following reasoning: [T]he guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Id. at 153, 45 S.Ct. 280 (emphasis added). But cf. Dyson, 527 U.S. at 466-67, 119 S.Ct. 2013 (<HOLDING>). The Court was careful to distinguish the
holding that the concept of separate but equal has no place in public education holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case holding that the carroll doctrine has no separate exigency requirement recognizing doctrine holding that lack of a separate judgment does not preclude the taking of an appeal from a district courts final decision because the parties may waive the separate judgment requirement where one has accidentally not been entered