In what legal case is the Carroll Doctrine rooted?

The Carroll Doctrine is rooted in the case of Carroll v. U.S. This doctrine established that law enforcement officers are allowed to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of a crime. The rationale behind this legal principle is based on the inherent mobility of vehicles and the potential for evidence to be quickly removed or destroyed if officers were required to obtain a warrant first. This case set a significant precedent in the context of the Fourth Amendment, balancing the needs of law enforcement to effectively investigate crime with the rights of individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The other cases mentioned, while important in their own rights, pertain to different aspects of criminal procedure and constitutional law: Miranda v. Arizona addresses the rights of arrested individuals to be informed of their rights, Terry v. Ohio deals with the police's ability to stop and frisk individuals based on reasonable suspicion, and Gideon v. Wainwright focuses on the right to legal counsel. These cases do not relate directly to the vehicle search standards established in the Carroll ruling.