The final word on car searches

chrissie

chrissie

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 5, 2000
Messages
18,476
Location
wanderer
a friend asked me to post this, i tried a search, forgive me if its already been fully covered. here goes...
How far do they dig during a typical car search?
This has always been bothering me since I don’t know exactly what constitutes search and how far law enforcement is typically allowed to go when searching a car of a person who has consented to a search. I’d presume that if they have a warrant to search your car/person, they’re going to do the most thorough job possible. However, in the circumstances when they want to search the car because they saw something that got their attention, and you allowed them to search it, how deep do they dig?
In other words, do they make you open your trunk, and inside the trunk, how deep would they normally go? Do they take out spare tires, look inside tool compartments? What about inside your bag, and lets say you have a bottle with medicine in it…are they allowed to take all the pills out, and do they try to test them all, being that you may have a great deal of various legal meds on you? What if the medicine bottle is factory closed/sealed…do they open it nevertheless? Finally, how far do they usually go searching your person/body…can they make you take of your underwear or something crazy like that, during a regular car search?
Basically, a friend and I keep arguing about all of this stuff, and everyone comes up with explanations that are never complete. I’m tired about arguing about this, and would like to hear both, legal perspective (what they’re allowed to do), and more importantly, evidential perspective (as in what actually happened when you or someone you know went through a car search).
 
The issue of car searches is one that is not easy nor concrete. It is important to note that most often cops will do whatever the feel like doing, within general reason of course, and the evidence found will be hashed out at trial.
First, speaking from experience, cops have a lot of leeway. My friend and I were pulled over for speeding and the officer reasonably believed my friend was under the influence of marijuana and thus searched the car. He looked in every possible spot, opening containers, looking in the trunk, he even frisked me. He of course found the weed and my friend was cited for possession. He went to court, told them he was planning on filing a motion to supress, and the county attorney lowered the charge to disturbing the peace.
On the whole, the officers actions were proper, given the circumstances. However, based on case law, his searching of the trunk may not have been valid and anything found there may have been thrown out.
Now....to the experts....
In New York v. Belton many of the intricacies that derived from automobile searches were negated. Belton’s search centered on an examination of the passengers’ compartment that commenced after the occupants had been legally arrested and placed, in handcuffs, on the sidewalk. A jacket containing cocaine was then discovered inside the car. The Supreme Court found this search to be constitutional and incident to a lawful arrest. Justice Stewart declared, "Not only may the police search the passenger compartment of the car in such circumstances, they may also examine the contents of any containers found in the passenger compartment. And such a container may be searched whether it is open or closed, since the justification for the search is not that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the container, but that the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have."
The Justice went on to define a container as "any object capable of holding another object. It includes closed or open glove compartments, consoles, or other receptacles located anywhere within the passenger compartment, as well as luggage, boxes, bags, clothing, and the like."
In United States vs. Ross Chief Justice Stevens edified this opinion: "Where police officers have probable cause to search an entire vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of every part of the vehicle and its contents, including all containers and packages, that may conceal the object of the search. The scope of the search is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. For example, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase."
Essentially, cops can search your entire vehicle if they have reason to believe there is contraband present. If it is simply a search incident to an arrest, the courts have generally held that everything in the passenger compartment is fair game, thus excluding the trunk.
As far as how much they can search the person..I'm not too sure on this one. Of course there is the Terry pat that is done for an officers immediate safety which can generally be performed at any time (ie me standing outside my friend's car as a passenger). On the whole, cops would not strip search you or get down to your underwear, etc during a routine search. If they believed you had something more hidden on you, they would arrest you and then make subsequent searches.
I hope this helps clear up some questions. I might be missing a few points here....I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong :)
Dr. J
 
silly me, i didnt think to look in the faq
ill redirect him there
thanks for the responses :)
 
Excerpted from my post in another thread (which you may wish to check
If there is no arrest, no probable cause (or reasonable suspicion for weapons), no exigency, no warrant, no consent, and the car is not impounded, the officer CANNOT search the vehicle.
If there is an arrest, the police can search the passenger compartment (i.e. the "grab area"). (New York v. Belton.) However, if the car is impounded, they can search the entire care as an administrative/inventory search. (Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987); Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983).) If there is a reasonable suspicion for a belief that weapons may be found, then the police may search the passenger compartment for weapons. (Michigan v. Long).
If the police have probable cause to search the car, generally they can search the entire car, including the trunk, and containers in the car. (Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925); U.S. v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982); California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991).)
However (and this is the tricky part), if the cops only have probable cause to search a container that went into the car, they can only search the area with the container. For example, if the cop saw you put drugs in a suitcase, and he saw you put the suitcase in the trunk, he has probable cause to access the trunk, but NOT to search the entire car. Of course, if the suitcase really contains drugs and the cops find them, then they can search the entire car on the basis of probable cause, or incident to your arrest.
[ 04 September 2002: Message edited by: Mahan Atma ]
 
Originally posted by Mahan Atma:
Excerpted from my post in another thread (which you may wish to check
If there is no arrest, no probable cause (or reasonable suspicion for weapons), no exigency, no warrant, no consent, and the car is not impounded, the officer CANNOT search the vehicle.
unless of course, you give him permission to do so.
Click to expand...
 
^^^when u give them permission to search the car, is it usually implied that they can search the trunk as well, or is it just driver/passanger area of the car? Are you allowed to ask in advance what/where they want to search, or is that just likely to draw more attention to the trunk?
I also just noticed that the original post had a question about sealed (even factory sealed) containers, like a bottle with some anti-oxidants in it for example, that is closed. That's a pretty funny scenario that presents an interesting twist. Opening it would present a problem, as the value of the bottle is destroyed if it's opened (if you're purchased it for someone else for example). What do they do in these cases...Anybody knows the answer?
 
Xplore....
Cops would not hesitate to open a sealed container simply because it might detract from its value. People are clever and can hide things well, create the appreance of a "factory-sealed" container. Everything would be fair game.
 
Originally posted by ~*JungleFaerie*~:
at what point--
- can they rip apart your entire car?
- can they bring out the dogs?
I haven't seen caselaw on this, but here's my feeling:
Legally, once they have probable cause to search the car, generally they can search the ENTIRE car. If they have PC, and they find drugs, the drugs are coming in as evidence, that's that. On the other hand, practically speaking they'll probably want to make sure they actually do have PC before doing this, because there might be civil liability if the PC was weak.nonexistent (and especially they don't find drugs).
Note that if they have a warrant to search for something like a gun (or something large in general), they can only search where that gun or object could actually be hidden, so they would not then be justified in searching literally every inch of the car. Nor could they open medicine bottles and the like.
For a search incident to arrest, they're just supposed to check the passenger compartment for weapons, not tear it apart. If the car is impounded, the search might be a little more extensive (e.g. for things that might be stolen out of the car and need to be catalogued), but again I don't think they can tear it apart.
If you gave them consent to search, it might depending on wording of their question and your answer. Typically they say something like, "Mind if we have a look around your car?" That wouldn't permit them to tear it apart, normally. However, it certainly would be possible for you to give them consent to do so, but ordinarily you don't.
So basically it comes down to probable cause.
[ 05 September 2002: Message edited by: Mahan Atma ]
Click to expand...
 
The main thing to remember when thinking about car searches, or any other searches is REASONABLENESS, the 4th ammendment protects us from UNREASONABLE search and seizure.
What is and is not reasonable varies by the situation. It's not reasonable for the police to rip apart your car, or search your trunk if you get pulled over and arrested in a traffic stop for DUI, but if you're being arrested for armed robbery obviously the search is going to be more intensive but still probably won't involve ripping out the gas tank for example. If you're in a situation where the police have probable cause to believe you're smuggling drugs(for example) the search is likely to be even MORE intensive and might involve things like ripping the gas tank out.
Hope that helps
 
quote:
-------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ~*JungleFaerie*~:
at what point--
- can they rip apart your entire car?
- can they bring out the dogs?
--------------------------------------------------
Hey JF. Just thought I would add to this considering that I had by car searched by dogs bouta couple years back. Im not certain of the *legality* of what occured but I will have yoo know that ALL the evidence found both by tha dog as well as the police officers was thrown out of court. Lucky me.
I was driving my friends home froma partie. ALL of us were coming down off of pills. I ended up getting pulled over for speeding. Officer took one look at my eyes *still blown up* and pulled me outa tha car for questioning. Feeling cornered,
I FOOLISHLY confessed that I had puffed earlier that night still keeping the fact that I had been rolling secret. According to my lawyer, my confession was what gave the police officers probable cause to search my vehicle. In other words, had I just kept my STOOPID mouth shut, the cops would have had no reason to search my car.
Ne ways, by this time I was handcuffed sitting on the side of the road. Two other police cruisers pulled up, one of which wasa K-9 unit. The arresting officer then proceeded to tell me that he had *reason to believe there was drugs in my car* and asked permission to have tha dog conduct a search. I graciously complied knowing that I didnt have ne thing illegal to be hiding. The dog did his thing *beautifull dog btw* and ended up hitting onna celpohane that had RESIDUE of mj in it. RESIDUE. Nothing else was found. I remember sitting there wondering if I was going to have to witness them ripping apart my car. At the time the
cops seemed DETERMINED to find something, anything
at all costs, even tho I had told them that I was holding nothing. I even remember making a smart assed comment to the police officer saying that I was sorie to dissapoint him when all he could come up with wasa lousey celophane with residue in it.
Unfortunately I am not certain of the *legality* of the search that occured. I am however, certain that I FUCKED up in admitting that I had puffed. Two things I learned from my whole ordeal. First,
exercise your right to remain silent. Cops lie and will manipulate the shit outa yoo till yoo tell them whut they want to hear. No matter how cornered yoo may feel, best bet is to keep your mouth shut. Second, never underestimate the cleverness ofa drug sniffing dog. The fact that this dog hit on a celophane with only RESIDUE in it simplay AMAZED me. These animals are BRILLIANT
and GOOD at whut they do. I can honestly say that I now have even more respect for these K-9's than
I do for actual police officers. Reason being is that these dogs just simply do their jobs. They dont lie, manipulate, or judge the way that IMO most cops do.
Not sure if that helped much. Just sharing my experience. :)
 
Irie...
If the officer had noticed your eyes were dialated and believed you were under the influence of some kind of drug, he would likely have had reason to search your car, even without you opening your mouth. Moreover, it is against the law to be a) driving under the influence of any drug b) against the law to simply be under the influence of a controlled substance. (in many states this is fact, not sure if it's the case for all states). He could have required you to submit to a chemical test that likely would have been illegal to decline.
The simple answer is not to drive while rolling, being drunk, etc. I'm surprised that your case got thrown out of court. Even filing a motion to supress in my friend's case (he got it reduced anyway) would likely have been fruitless. He was pulled over and was stoned...blood shot eyes. Cops are generally able to discern, based upon their experience and training (yadda yadda) what a person looks like when under the influence of alcohol or drugs. To this end then, they have probable cause to believe there may be something else in the car. As you said, you were indeed lucky.
Thanks for sharing the experience, puts things in perspective.
Dr. J
 
ive had my pupils stay dialated even through part of the next day... and indeed the drugs would have still been in my system (since they stay in there for about 3 days)
can the test tell when youve taken the drug? at what point are you no longer driving under the influence?
 
Directed at the doc:
If I remember correct this thread was about *car searches* and not *how bad it is to be driving while under the influence*. YES i know what I did was wrong and I have sworn to myself not to take advantage of the fact that I lucked out by having my case dismissed. Maybe I should have stated that there was THREE things I learned from my whole ordeal. The third being, not to drive while even semi-twisted. There better?
JF had asked a question to which I responded to. If im not mistaken she was also interested in hearing some *personal* experiences to which I shared mine. With all due respect, I didnt ask for your opinion or insight about why this happened nor did I want it. I simply posted to share a story, thats all.
Also, I am no expert here, but I dont believe that refusing a roadside, blood, urine, or even a breath test is illegal. Your can refuse, however, chances are that if yoo do, serious reprecussions will follow *example: automatic revocation of your
drivers license*. In my case I consented to a urine test knowing that if I didnt my priveledge to drive would be suspended for a long assed time.
^^^^^^ Sorie off topic.
Have more to add but too tired too plus it would be off topic. So..thats it. :)
Okie I'll add since I just noticed JF last post.
Once again I am no expert here, but I seriously doubt that my car woulda been sniffed out had I not opened my mouth. First of all, I got pulled over for speeding, and searches for this kinda offense are not common. Second of all, according to my lawyer, the fact that my eyes were blown up would not hold up in court as probable cause. The reason being is that there are numerous other things out there, besides drugs, that cause pupil dialation. Ne thing from migraines to anxiety can cause a persons eyes to become huge. Maybe my car would've been searched ne ways reguardless, who knows. All I know if that my confession certainly
caused more harm than good.
To answer JFS question:
I remember my lawyer literally SCREAMING at me when I told him I admitted to puffing. One thing he made VERY clear to me was to NEVER EVER admit to doing drugs to a cop under ANY circumstances. The reason? Because the tests can NOT determine when the drug in question was consumed. Take for instance tha UA I consented to. I am certain that the results came back hot for thc *although ill never know cuz the rookie DA never obtained the results, which is one of the reasons my case got dismissed*. Even tho it came back hot for thc, it would have been impossible for them to determine *had I not opened my stoopid mouth* when I actually smoked since the tests measure content and not levels. So for all they knew I could've puffed 3-4 months prior to my arrest. Um..this is hard to explain. UAS can prove that drugs are present inna persons system, however, they cannot prove the levels of tha drug that was injested.
Alcohol is the only exception to tha rule. Breathalizers can measure both content *booze* and levels *blood alcohol*. Make sense kinda?
As for when yoo are no longer driving while under tha influence? Good question but I havent a clue :)
[ 09 September 2002: Message edited by: IRIE ]
[ 09 September 2002: Message edited by: IRIE ]
 
Everyone is right on about the searches. However, I would like to say something regarding the commonly held misconception that it is legal to refuse a breathalyzer or blood test. In Florida, we have a little disclaimer at the bottom of our driver's license that says something to the effect that operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law. If you are pulled over in Florida, asked to take a sobriety test and you refuse, your driver's license is automatically suspended for 6 months. The constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures therefore does not extend to sobriety testing, at least not in Florida anyways.
 
michael said:
nor does the 5th amendment qualify. it has been through the supreme court that your right to not incriminate yourself does not cover sobriety tests.
Click to expand...

Do you have a cite to this case?

My understanding is that they can take away your license for refusing to cooperate, but the Fifth and/or Fourth Amendment still applies in that they cannot use your refusal against you in a criminal prosecution.
 
iso240 said:
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=18690
any comments on this? did the cop really have to ask just to walk the dog around the outside of the car, or was he just trying to scare the kid into saying something? if the cop wanted to, could he have brought a dog to sniff around the outside of the car? btw, i assume a dog could smell something through a closed car door, but i really don't know. any input there?
Click to expand...

They're allowed to bring a dog to walk around outside the car, as long as they don't detain you for longer than necessary given whatever level of reasonable suspicion they may have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top