DEAR
SAFMOIYP: Good question. The answer requires an answer that probably is
better explained by a lawyer, so if there was a problem please go speak to one, but since I play a cop only on the
Internet I’ll try my best to answer as briefly, easily, and concisely as I can from a cop's perspective.
Legal eagles out there chime in please if at any part I botch this up.
“The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized. [1]”
This
is a cornerstone of what makes our country so special and different than places
like China or Syria. The above words are law, and they actually do mean
something, and for the most part, we at least try to enforce them with mostly
success and occasional failure. But no other country can beat our record, which
is why I think we are the envy of the world in the league of democracies. What these words mean above in short, is
that unless someone calls 911 under genuine pretenses, which automatically
allows the police entry into a premise absent exceptional circumstances, the
police need to go to the nearest court, and get permission from a judge by
explaining why they need to gain entry into a premise to seize a person, place,
or thing. Their reason must be based on the idea backed with evidence that
something seems likely to happen, also called probable cause, that something is
afoot that they need access to seize whomever or whatever it is. Like
everything else in life however, to every rule, there is an exception. One of them we just stated is a 911 call,
also called the emergency exception. No warrant is usually needed for the
police to enter; in fact they can use force to enter as it is considered an
emergency. And calling to cancel does not cancel the right of entry. The police
still MUST enter to ensure that all is OK.
Another
exception that the founders didn’t anticipate was the automobile. You can call
it a premise like a home or business, but the problem is that because a vehicle
is mobile, it has less of an expectation of privacy. You can’t secure it like a
building, except for an RV you generally don’t live in it, fruits of a crime
can easily be secreted from the police, and it could even be used as a weapon
or hide a weapon. So the courts over the last 130 years since the auto’s
invention had to pare down the rights people expect in vehicles that they have
in a premise.
To
answer your question more directly there are six U.S. Supreme Court landmark
cases, which allow the police a warrantless vehicle search that they just don’t
have with a premise. This is called the
automobile exception:
Carroll
v. U.S., 1925.
Establishes the idea that you can search a car without a warrant.
Chambers v. Maroney, 1970.
Ditto, and the police can move the car somewhere else beforehand.
New York v. Belton, 1981. Police
can warrantless search a car incident to an arrest.
U.S. v. Ross, 1982. Can warrantless search a car
and a closed container inside.
Thornton v. U.S., 2004. Ditto,
and can search incident to arrest in or out of vehicle.
Arizona v. Gant, 2009. Narrows the scope of
search incident to arrest with a car.
If you have something to hide in your car, then this becomes a scene that you won't want to see . . . |
When a motorhome/RV/camper is in this mode, the police tactic is usually about a WARRANTLESS search of the vehicle on probable cause, and when needed. |
The only time that the police
need a warrant to enter your car is when the car is unoccupied, secured, and
parked or at anytime when it would be appropriate to get a warrant. With RV’s,
they also have to be careful, but not always. If the RV is parked and pitched
in a park, the RV becomes more like a home. If it is on the road in the process
of travel, then skies are just about the limit with warrantless searches. In any
case where the police need to search a stationary car, they will have an officer
watch the car to establish a chain of custody while they go to court (or call a
judge to obtain a phone warrant or by fax) to secure a warrant. If time is of
the essence, once they have the warrant, they may not even wait until the
warrant is at the scene to radio ahead to search the car.
So SAFMOIYP,
I am CITING you with a WARNING: be prepared to be laughed at if you ask an
officer for a warrant on the side of the road if you are stopped and he wants
to search your car. He doesn’t even have to wait for you to seek advice from a
lawyer. If I were you I would ask why and what he is looking for, but would be
very leery to consent unless that was my own car to know where it has been and
what was in it to absolute certainty to prove that I had nothing to hide. I
would even be weary with a rented car; did you check that rental car thoroughly
to know what’s in it or what another renter left behind? If you are ever in a situation where your car has been searched and you're not sure if probable cause existed, speak to an attorney who can determine if the police were within their authority to search. But remember, that the law does give them wider latitude under those circumstances. I hope this answers
your question. Good luck.
Related Reading:
Related Reading:
I once had a tire go flat, in of all places, on the road 100 yards from the Pentagon! In this day and age, you get no time for your road service to come out. So, anyway, the cop sees I have an expired inspection, and in addition, asks me for permission to search my vehicle! Well, I did the right thing. I said, "You just gave me a ticket which is going to cost me at least $30 and you expect me to give you permission? No." They brought the K9 to search and went through it anyway. I didn't have anything and it wouldn't have mattered, but I just was fed up about it.
ReplyDeleteEven though nothing was in the car, it was a good thing you refused the search anyway. Had there been something in the car that was illegal, and you refused the search anyway, the officer would have had to articulate what was the reasonable suspicion that led him to the search in the first place. A flat tire is not enough. If his explanation wasn't acceptable, whatever evidence was in the car could have been suppressed.
ReplyDeleteBy refusing the search you make it easier for your lawyer to throw out the search, suppress any evidence, and dismiss the arrest case against you in court as opposed to you consenting. Remember that for next time should this happen again.