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.

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.