My question is this: when a police officer pulls over an individual and proceeds to do an exhaustive sarch of the car, are they obligated to inform the driver why they’re doing it and what they’re looking for? (In Kentucky, if it matters)
Backstory: About a month ago, I was driving home from dinner after dark when I noticed that I had a headlight out. So I headed for Walmart to get a new bulb, planning to change it in the parking lot. On the way, a police car pulled me over and the cop told me that I had a headlight out. He then made me and my friend get out of the car, do a full sobriety check (neither of us drinks at all), patted us down, interrogated us, and made us stand outside while he CALLED FOR BACKUP! Eventually, three more cars showed up and about four cops started combing through my car while two more kept a close watch on my friend and me. They found nothing, and let me off with a warning. But to this day, I have no idea why we were so suspicious. None of the cops ever told me what we had done to warrant calling for backup, since my friend and I had been entirely cooperative and nonthreatening. Can anyone explain this odd behavior, or at least hazard a guess? I’m at a loss.
IANAL, but unless you had anything laying out in plain sight that would constitute probable cause for a search, if you did not consent to the search, then the search is illegal without a warrant.
I’m not sure state-to-state, but I think that if the warrant isn’t clear about what exactly they are searching for, you would be within your rights to ask.
Furthermore, I’m not sure state-to-state, but I think that if the warrant isn’t clear about what exactly they are searching for, you would be within your rights to ask.
Well, that changes things a little. If you consented to the search, they don’t need a warrant (because you consented.) And you could have asked what they were looking for before you consented, but once you consented, they had all the authority they needed.
There is no Constitutional principle that requires the police to inform you of why they’re suspicious and want to search you. I’m not aware of any state law that would compel such a disclosure, either.
You, of course, have every right to refuse their request to search you. At that point, they cannot search without probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Even then, they don’t have to tell you what crime they believe has been committed or describe the basis of their probable cause to you.
I suppose, if you’re driven by blinding curiousity, you could say, “Well, officer, I’ll make you a deal: if you tell me what’s made you so suspicious, I’ll consent to a search.”
That’s the question then. If he would have asked what they were looking for and they didn’t find that but found something else, would it have mattered?
Or, if the police say, “Mind if we check the auto for guns?” and they find pot can they use that against the driver?
At least as my fire investigation class covered it you may have to be more specific. If the officer asks and tells you someone with a large assault rifle robbed a mini-mart down the street and they want to look for that rifle, checking in your ashtray would never turn up said assault rifle.
The example we were give was that if I had a warrant looking for a 500 pound marble elephant I could pretty much look around every room but since the elephant would never fit in a drawer that the search could and probably would be thrown out of I were to open a nightstand drawer and find half a pound of crack. The crack would of course be confiscated but charging you for it would be difficult.
I’m not sure of the OP’s age, but years ago my friends and I were regularly stopped and searched for two primary offenses – “Driving Under The Age Of 25” and “Driving With Long Hair”. We didn’t do drugs, and generally had nothing to hide, so these searches were just looked at as one of life’s little annoyances.
The one time that a friend decided to say “no, you have no reason to search the car”, it was fine with the officer. Three hours and seven tickets later, his point was made.
It is amazing how many people willingly, even eagerly, give permission for a search of their automobile. I remember one case near Daytona where a state trooper had stopped a man for a traffic violation and (as was his practice!) asked the man if he could look in his trunk. The man immediately agreed (all this was recorded on video tape).
The trooper opened the trunk, and it was loaded to capacity with bags of marijuana.
It seems clear to me that many people do not understand that they can lawfully and without penalty refuse to give permission to search their vehicles. Now, I’m probably going to catch a lot of heat from fellow law enforcement officials, but I don’t think a notification requirement (not unlike the Miranda warning) would be all that inappropriate. Something along the lines of
“I am asking you to consent to the search of your vehicle. You are free to deny consent, and your denial of consent will not adversely affect you. If you give consent, it cannot be withdrawn.”
We’ve been required to do it for many years before interrogating someone because the courts found that many people don’t understand they don’t have to talk; I’m surprised this logic hasn’t been applied to auto searches.
Not at all. Once they are legally searching, anything that they see is fair game. Of course, there are some tricky exceptions. They can only search where probable cause directs them. If they are looking for a stolen horse, they probably can’t look in the glove compartment for it. But these things get pretty mushy.
That’s why, as my criminal procedure professor was fond of noting, they love to get search warrants for stamps and coins.
And don’t get too hung up on probable cause or warrants. The police don’t need a warrant to search your car. http://www.aclu.org/scotus/1999/22501prs19991001.html And they don’t need probable cause to look for weapons as long as they have a reasonable suspicion: