Law Enforcement: Profiling and Vehicle Searches

One of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is the so-called ''automobile'' exception. If a vehicle is stopped by police, a warrantless search of the vehicle is usually allowable under this exception if the police have probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of a crime. This is based on the principle of exigency, or the need for immediate action arising out of the likely disappearance of the vehicle and the possibility of destruction of the evidence.

Generally, a speeding or traffic violation by itself does not justify the search of a vehicle, but this rule is not without exceptions. If the officer has a reasonable belief that they might be assaulted by the driver, or if the driver fails to produce a valid license or produces a forged one, a search will normally be valid. 

In most instances, a valid search of a vehicle can include any containers within the car, such as packages or luggage. While there must be a connection between a crime and the search, there is no  rule that the search be limited only to items relating to that crime; i.e., the police can search the driver and the car if they have a reasonable belief, or probable cause to believe, that there is a gun in the driver's possession or in the car.
When there is probable cause to search a vehicle, it is not necessary that the search take place immediately. A valid search can occur long after the initial stop and even after the car has been moved to the police station or impound lot. 

When a car is impounded, the police can search it for the purposes of taking an inventory of its contents. It is not necessary that the search be conducted for the purpose of seeking evidence of a crime. While the police can search the entire car and catalog its contents, they are limited in what they can do with the contents; for an inventory search to be valid, it must be made pursuant to standardized police procedures.

If a driver gives a police officer permission to search their car, the warrant requirement is, of course, not necessary. Consent can be either ''express'' or ''implied.''
Implied consent usually becomes a factor when a driver is suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol (''DUI'' or ''DWI''); many states now have statutes that specify that when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a driver is impaired, the driver's use of the public streets is considered implied consent to search of the driver's person and vehicle.
 Express consent arises when a police officer asks for and receives permission to search the driver's car. When such consent is given, the officer usually is permitted to open a closed container in the car if it might reasonably hold the object of the search.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defines the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If you have been subjected to an unreasonable search by law enforcement, contact Parnham & McWilliams today at (713) 224-3967 or visit www.parnhamandassociates.com for a free consultation. We are dedicated to protecting your Constitutional Rights.

Traffic Stops: Required Identification- Houston Lawyer

To stop a vehicle, a police officer only needs a reasonable suspicion that the driver is committing, or has committed, a traffic infraction. Usually that suspicion arises from the officer's own observation of the driver and vehicle; however, police also have the authority to stop a vehicle based upon information from an another anonymous driver or pedestrian.
 
On its own, a simple traffic violation will not justify the search of a vehicle; a driver's excessive speed or other minor traffic infraction does not usually indicate that the driver is violent, and it does not give the police officer any reason to think that he is in danger of being assaulted.
However, if the officer has a reasonable belief that he or she might be assaulted by the driver, or if the motorist fails to produce a driver's license or produces a forged one, a search by the officer may be valid.
The officer's suspicion might be reasonable even if the officer makes a mistake of fact, for instance if their computer mistakenly reports that the driver's license is under suspension. However, if the officer does stop a driver based on a mistake of law, the officer's suspicion is not reasonable and the stop will usually be invalidated.

A pretextual traffic stop occurs when an officer uses the suspicion of a traffic violation as an excuse to stop a vehicle for another reason. Pretext stops may still be valid even if a reasonable officer would not have made the stop. Thus, the officer's ulterior motive for making the stop may not be relevant in determining the validity of the stop. Still, many state courts will not blindly accept the officer's pretextual traffic violation justification. For example, weaving and improper lane changes may not be sufficient to show the pretext of a traffic violation unless it is also shown that the motorist's driving posed a safety issue to another vehicle.

Roadblocks or sobriety checkpoints are permitted under the Fourth Amendment so long as they are conducted in a neutral or non-arbitrary manner, their intrusion on motorists is limited, and they further an important governmental or public purpose. There is no requirement that an officer have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify a stop at a roadblock.

Independent of traffic violations, if a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a motorist is either committing or preparing to commit a crime, the officer is justified in stopping the vehicle.


Once police officers have lawfully stopped a vehicle, either because of probable cause for a traffic infraction or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, they can:

• Order the occupants out of the vehicle
• Ask to see the driver's license, registration, and other relevant information, such as proof of insurance.
• Conduct a limited search to gain access to the vehicle identification number.
• Conduct a dog sniff (''canine sniff''), so long as the sniff does not extend the length of the stop.
• Take actions reasonably related to the original reason for stopping the vehicle, or related to suspicions that develop during the stop.
• Frisk for weapons if they have or develop a reasonable suspicion that the occupants may be armed or dangerous, and
• Search the vehicle if the stop provides probable cause for the officers to believe it contains illegal or stolen goods or evidence of a crime.

 When it comes to criminal law cases, an experienced and effective criminal defense attorney can mean the difference between a prison sentence and reduced or dismissed charges. The lawyers of Parnham & Associates are dedicated to defending the rights of the accused and our criminal defense attorneys are committed to the presumption of innocence. Even in less serious cases, a good criminal defense attorney can make a serious impact on the outcome of the case by ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected throughout the legal process. For these and other reasons, it is vital that those accused of a crime select the most competent, experienced and effective attorney available.

Warrantless Search and Seizures: Florida vs. Jardines

In Florida v. Jardines, the Supreme Court ruled that a “sniff test” by a drug detection dog at the front door of a home constituted an unreasonable “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In that case, the Miami-Dade police received a “crime stoppers” tip that Mr. Jardines’ home was being used as a marijuana grow house. The police set up surveillance outside of his home and brought a drug detection dog to the porch of his residence. Only after the handler of the dog notified the detective that the dog had a positive alert for the odor of marijuana did the detective obtain a search warrant.

Consequently, the police searched his home, discovered the marijuana plants and arrested Mr. Jardines. After being charged and convicted of marijiuana trafficking, Jardines argued that the sniff test constituted an illegal search without probable cause and thus the evidence should be deemed inadmissible. The trial court granted Jardine’s motion to suppress the evidence, but the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the search was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. The state appealed the case and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.

 The Supreme Court affirmed the Florida Supreme Court’s decision by a 5-4 margin along ideological lines. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the court, joined by Kagan, Thomas, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion was focused on a citizen’s property rights rather than the right to privacy. The Court argued that at the heart of the Fourth Amendment stands “the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”
The Court conceded that police officers have the right to engage a homeowner in a “knock and talk” for the purpose of gathering evidence without a warrant as homeowners have reasonable expectations that the public will approach their door. However, Scalia pointed out that homeowners do not license visitors to “explor[e] the front pant with a metal detector” or the police to “peer into the house through binoculars with impunity.”

The Court determined that bringing a drug detection dog onto a person’s property to obtain evidence without a warrant was an unreasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Although the majority opinion did not address whether Jardines’ privacy was implicated by the search, Justice Kagan wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor, arguing that both his privacy and property rights were implicated. The concurring opinion analogized drug detection dogs to the high-powered binoculars referenced in the majority opinion and argued that where a device is not “in general public use,” and is used to obtain evidence in one’s home, it violates a persons “minimal expectation of privacy.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defines the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If you have been subjected to an unreasonable search by law enforcement, contact Parnham & McWilliams today at (713) 224-3967 or visit www.parnhamandmcwilliams.com. for a free consultation. We are dedicated to protecting your Constitutional Rights.