Can I Be Searched After Being Pulled Over for a Dim Brake Light?
Full Question:
Answer:
It is recommended to be represented by an attorney when facing criminal charges due to the serious nature of the consequences and effect on your rights that may be involved. Automobiles may be stopped if an officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist has violated a traffic law. One exception to the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement is that, incident to a lawful arrest, police may search an arrestee and the area immediately surrounding him. Such a search must be contemporaneous with the arrest, conducted to prevent the seizure of a weapon or the destruction of evidence, and limited to an area within the arrestees control. Police may conduct warrantless searches of vehicles and any containers within which are likely to contain what they are looking for whenever police have probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence will be found in the vehicle.
Once the vehicle has pulled to the side of the road, the Fourth Amendment permits the officer to search the vehicle's interior, including the glove compartment. However, the trunk of a vehicle cannot be searched unless the officer has probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or the instrumentalities of criminal activity. Like a search incident to arrest, once a vehicle has been lawfully impounded, its contents may be inventoried without a warrant, including the contents of the trunk.
Traffic stops based on reasonable suspicion are investigatory stops under Terry v. Ohio. Stops based on reasonable suspicion may be likely to be challenged by a defendant than stops based on probable cause.
Some of the most common ways allowed for officers to search/frisk a vehicle without a search warrant include:
• Abandoned Vehicles.
• Plain View.
• Consent.
• Inspection.
• Search During Temporary Questioning.
• Incident to Arrest.
• Probable Cause.
• Inventory Searches.
For an officer to search a vehicle with the consent of the person in control of the vehicle, the consent must be voluntarily, freely, and knowingly given. To prove voluntary consent, the consent must be unequivocal and specific, and freely and knowingly given. Consent must be given without duress or coercion, express or implied.
A traffic officer, or person authorized to enforce non-moving traffic violations may use reasonable means to gain access to a vehicle if that vehicles identification number can not be read, such as where the identification number has been removed, altered, or obliterated or made impossible to read.
A vehicle may be searched during temporary questioning, when certain articulable facts are present. In order to justify a protective sweep of a vehicle, an officer must have a reasonable fear that he/she is in danger. For example, in one case, when officers approached a vehicle during an investigation of possible drug dealing, and the driver's hand was hidden from view, the officer was found justified in conducting a protective search of the passenger compartment, since the suspect may have dropped a weapon in the car that would present a danger to the officers
Some of the factors that may be considered in justifying a protective sweep of a vehicle, among others, include:
-Reason for the stop.
-Furtive movement by the driver and whether the officer sought any explanations of such movements.
-Officer to subject ratios
-Whether the officer intended tolet the driver return to the vehicle after the encounter was over or the officer intended to eventually arrest the driver.
-Number of persons in the stopped vehicle.
-The time of day or night and the lighting conditions.
-The position of the squad car and the other vehicle and were the officers in a particularly vulnerable position in relation to the person or persons in the car.
-Odd or unusual behavior by the driver.
-Whether the driver or passenger(s) attempted to flee.
-Unusual indications of nervousness by occupants of the vehicle
-Indications of alcohol or drugs.
-Whether the area is a high crime area.
The United States Constitution guarantees, in the Fourth Amendment, that citizens of the country are free from unreasonable search and seizures. This right is based on the premise that everyone is entitled to a reasonable amount of a right to privacy. Before a search and seizure can be carried out, a search warrant must first be obtained by the law enforcement officers. A search warrant is a court ordered document that is issued by a judge. The document authorizes law enforcement to conduct a search of a person or a location for evidence in a criminal offense and seize the items that pertain to the case.
Some requirements that must be met before a search or arrest warrant can be issued include:
The warrants must be judicially sanctioned.
The request for the warrants must be supported by probable cause.
The case must be limited in scope.
The person requesting the warrant(s) (police officer) must swear by the warrant.
The officer or person requesting the warrant(s) is accountable to the issuing court.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, housed in the Bill of Rights, gives citizens of the country the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures:
“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.”
The Fourth Amendment only guarantees a right of freedom from unreasonable search and seizures committed by government agencies such as police departments, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA and other agencies. The Fourth Amendment does not guarantee the right of freedom from unreasonable search and seizures from private citizens of the United States or corporations within the United States.
With almost all laws in the United States, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement for government officials before they can arrest or search a person or their property:
Plain View Doctrine: The Plain View Doctrine says that if an officer is lawfully present at a place, that officer may begin a search if they have probable cause that they are looking for contraband. The objects that they search and seize must be in plain view of the officer.
Open Fields Doctrine: The Open Fields Doctrine says that open fields, waters, woods, and other such areas may be searched and have objects seized without the presence of a warrant
Exigent Circumstances: Exigent Circumstances are when the officer is allowed to perform a search and seizure without a warrant because they feel that it is necessary to the safety of themselves, other officers, the public, and their property.
Motor Vehicle Exception: The Motor Vehicle Exception is when an officer can search a vehicle if they have probable cause without a warrant but cannot search the people inside the car without probable cause or unless those people gave their consent.
The answer will be a matter of subjective determination for the court, based on all the facts and circumstances involved, such as the nature of the harassment and whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed. Reasonable suspicion has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as “the sort of common-sense conclusion about human behavior upon which practical people . . . are entitled to rely.” Further, it has defined reasonable suspicion as requiring only something more than an “unarticulated hunch.” It requires facts or circumstances that give rise to more than a bare, imaginary, or purely conjectural suspicion.
Not every search, seizure, or arrest must be made pursuant to a lawfully executed warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. The exceptions made to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement reflect the Court’s reluctance to unduly impede the job of law enforcement officials. The Court has attempted to strike a balance between the practical realities of daily police work and the privacy and freedom interests of the public. Always requiring police officers to take the time to complete a warrant application and locate and appear before a judge could result in the destruction of evidence, the disappearance of suspects and witnesses, or both. The circumstances under which a warrantless search, seizure, or arrest is deemed reasonable generally fall within seven categories.
First, no warrant is required for a felony arrest in a public place, even if the arresting officer had ample time to procure a warrant, so long as the officer possessed probable cause that the suspect committed the crime. Felony arrests in places not open to the public generally do require a warrant, unless the officer is in “hot pursuit” of a fleeing felon (see Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 [1967]). The Fourth Amendment also allows warrantless arrests for misdemeanors committed in an officer’s presence.
Second, no warrant is required for searches incident to lawful arrest. If a police officer has made a lawful arrest, with or without a warrant, the Fourth Amendment permits the officer to conduct a search of the suspect’s person, clothing, and all of the areas within the suspect’s immediate reach. This kind of warrantless search is justified on grounds that it allows police officers to protect themselves from hidden weapons that might suddenly be wielded against them. Accordingly, officers are only permitted to seize items from the area in the immediate control of the arrestee.
Third, automobiles may be stopped if an officer possesses a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist has violated a traffic law. Once the vehicle has pulled to the side of the road, the Fourth Amendment permits the officer to search the vehicle’s interior, including the glove compartment. However, the trunk of a vehicle cannot be searched unless the officer has probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or the instrumentalities of criminal activity. But similar to a search incident to arrest, once a vehicle has been lawfully impounded, its contents may be inventoried without a warrant, including the contents of the trunk.
Fourth, an officer who reasonably believes that criminal activity may be afoot in a public place is authorized to stop any person who is suspected of participating in that criminal activity and conduct a carefully limited search of the suspect’s outer clothing for weapons that may be used against the officer (see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 [1968]). The officer may also ask for identification, but the suspect is under no obligation to produce it. However, A suspect’s refusal to identify himself together with surrounding events may create probable cause to arrest (see People v. Loudermilk, 241 Cal. Rptr. 208 (Cal. App. 1987). This kind of warrantless search, called a Terry stop or a Terry frisk, is designed to protect officers from hidden weapons. Accordingly, items that do not feel like weapons, such as a baggie of soft, granular substance tucked inside a jacket pocket, cannot be seized during a Terry frisk, even if it turns out that the item is contraband.
Fifth, warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests may be justified by “exigent” circumstances. To determine whether exigent circumstances justified po-lice conduct, a court must review the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the underlying offense and whether the suspect was fleeing or trying to escape. However, the surrounding circumstances must be tantamount to an emergency. Shots fired, screams heard, or fire emanating from inside a building have all been considered sufficiently exigent to dispense with the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
Sixth, the Supreme Court has upheld brief, warrantless seizures at fixed roadside checkpoints aimed at intercepting illegal aliens (see United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 [1976]) and drunk drivers (see Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 [1990]). Both checkpoint programs passed constitutional muster because they were tailored to remedying specific problems that law enforcement could not effectively address through more traditional means, namely problems relating to policing the nation’s border and ensuring roadway safety. However, when the primary purpose of a checkpoint is simply to detect ordinary criminal activity, the Supreme Court has declared it violative of the Fourth Amendment (see Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 [2000]).
Seventh, searches, seizures, and arrests made pursuant to a defective warrant may be justified if the officer was proceeding in “good faith.” The Supreme Court has said that a search made pursuant to a warrant that is later declared invalid (i.e., it fails to meet the requirements for a valid warrant enumerated above) will still be considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment so long as the warrant was issued by a magistrate and the defect was not the result of willful police deception (see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 [1984]). This exception to the warrant requirement was created so as not to punish honest police officers who have done nothing wrong while acting in accordance with an ostensibly valid warrant.
