The automobile has proven to be of sufficient mobility to be recognized by the Supreme Court as a subject warranting special treatment with regard to fourth amendment guarantees. Numerous decisions in recent years have addressed a varity of possible circumstances involving automobile searches and appropriate application of constitutional considerations. In general, it may be stated that if time and circumstances permit, the law enforcement agent should obtain a search warrant. However, in the 1925 decision in 'Carroll v. United States' the Court recognized the 'automobile exception' based on inherent mobility and provided that a probable cause search would be constitutionally acceptable. This concept was extended in 'Chambers v. Maroney' (1970) to allow a delay of the search if it is unreasonable to conduct the search at the point of the stop on the highway. The recent cases of 'United States v. Chadwick' (1977) and 'Arkansas v. Sanders' (1979) cast doubt upon the 'Chambers' decision because once the automobile is under the exclusive control of the police it is no longer mobile, and therefore there are no exigent circumstances to support a warrantless search. These recent cases also question the validity of the rule announced in 'Cardwell v. Lewis' (1974) concerning the inspection of the exterior of a vehicle. The border search situation seems to be settled at present: the Court has maintained that probable cause for search is not necessary. However, this view may be challenged in the future under the reasonable suspicion test announced in two recent cases. Search of the driver and vehicle incident to arrest and delayed search questions are subject to further clarification. Footnotes are included in the article.