Amendment Rights for Drivers & Passengers

QUESTION

The 4th Amendment has very specific application to automobiles. Discuss a driver’s 4th Amendment rights when traveling in a vehicle.

When are police permitted to search the trunk of an automobile? How is a search of a trunk different from a search of the passenger compartment?

ANSWER

Fourth Amendment Rights for Drivers and Passengers

Introduction

Vehicle Searches and Drivers’ Rights

The Fourth Amendment outlines the privacy protection for drivers and passengers in a vehicle during traffic stops and checks. According to the judgment made in the case of Caroll v. the United States (1925), there cannot be a search of vehicles without a warrant. Such cases only occur if a police officer has a foreseeable cause, which makes him believe that the vehicle has contraband (Amsterdam, 1963). In this ruling, the Court argued that a vehicle’s mobility allows it to be relocated quickly if police spent time acquiring and executing a lawful search warrant. An unwarranted vehicle search during a police stop must have probable cause and must be at the stop – where the vehicle cannot be taken to a police station where a warrantless search is allowed. In case traffic officers suspect that either the passengers or the driver may have weapons, they are allowed to do a pat-down or “Terry-type search” to both of them (Sundby, 1987). However, they are prohibited from conducting a full-blown vehicle search unless they choose to arrest the driver. Generally, the Fourth Amendment outlaws any random police officer vehicle searches unless the officer has a valid reason, the permission of the driver, or a warrant allowing him to do so (Miles Jr & Wefing, 1972). However, law courts give police officers more allowance when it comes to searching vehicles than home searches. This is mostly because the courts recognize that people expect lesser privacy in vehicles than when they are at home.

The Fourth Amendment only spells out the basic level of privacy protection for a driver and passengers in a car. However, individual states can offer more protection of privacy through legislation. Traffic police officers are allowed to stop a vehicle during an ordinary traffic stops and inspections. They are only permitted to do so if they have an articulable feeling and a belief that the driver has not obeyed the traffic laws. Traffic offenses like over speeding are reason enough for a traffic police officer to search a vehicle. In case there is an arrest of a driver because of their actions or conduct after being stopped during a traffic check, their vehicle can be searched incident to the arrest. Passengers in any public vehicle should never expect privacy (Jones, 1996). Therefore, there is no invasion of interests if a police officer searches the passenger compartment or the spaces under their seats. In addition to this, police officers are allowed to search without warrant the vehicle’s trunk, luggage, or closed containers as long as they have a credible cause of doing so. It does not matter who the luggage belongs to or who between the driver and the passenger is under suspicion.

In conclusion, while the Fourth Amendment protects drivers and passengers from arbitrary searches, not all vehicle searches require a warrant. To some extent, warrantless vehicle searches are within the law and reasonable. They are only considered so if the driver permits an officer to search his vehicle, if the officer has presumed cause or if the officer believes that the vehicle has crime evidence. A warrantless search is also within the law if the search intends to find evidence that relates to an arrest, i.e., a case for illegal drugs. However, states can implement legislation to increase the drivers’ and passengers’ right to privacy during routine traffic stops.

References

Amsterdam, A. G. (1963). Search Seizure and Section 2255: A Comment. U. Pa. L. Rev., 112, 378.https://doi.org/10.2307/3310613

Miles Jr, J. G., & Wefing, J. B. (1972). The Automobile Search and the Fourth Amendment: A Troubled Relationship. Seton Hall L. Rev., 4, 105.https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1986&context=shlr

Sundby, S. E. (1987). A Return to Fourth Amendment Basics: Undoing the Mischief of Camara and Terry. Minn. L. Rev., 72, 383.https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr?utm_source=scholarship.law.umn.edu%2Fmlr%2F2312&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages