Just a question:
Does law enforcement need a search warrant to search a car at a random stop?
IIRC, SCOTUS ruled "No" I could very well be wrong.
If by "random stop" you mean a stop justified by any one of the hundreds of sections in the motor vehicle code, the answer is yes, you generally need a warrant. But there are lots and lots of exceptions to the warrant requirement for a moving premises.
Two of the most common ones are:
1) Consent. The driver says, "Yea, go ahead and search." Lots of arrests for contraband follow those words.
2) Search incident to arrest. Arrest the driver for minor charge (no ops, no insurance, unpaid ticket, whatever), and a complete inventory search is standard procedure.
I think they only need probable cause. For instance, if they believe they smell marijuana or if a drug dog hits on the car. However, this may just be TX.
susie
In the great state of Louisiana, a car is considered to be under the same state constitutional safeguards as ones home. However, the cops have been known to use certain techniques, such as fear and intimidation, to get into vehicles anyway.
Not if there is contraband in plain view or if they get consent or if they otherwise have probable cause to believe that there is illegal contraband in the car. Also, if they arrest someone for a valid cause (ie. outstanding warrant) they can perform a search incident to arrest of the person arrested and the area of the car in his immediate reach which could have a weapon available.
Not if they can intimidate the occupants into surrendering their rights!
Typically they will state that they saw something "in plain view", even if they have to plant it afterward to "justify" the original search.
Another common tactic is to "find" something wrong with the car, and threaten to have it towed unless a search is allowed.
Blank warrants, bluff threats of arrest, corrupt cops have no end of pretext to cower citizens into submission.
It's sad my attitude has become so bad, maybe the good cops should think harder about the long term consequences TO THEMSELVES of backing the bad cops when they go into thug mode!
It is public property. The police are the representative of the public. The guy in the car is not.
Not totally the right question: the right question is "does law enforcement have the right to stop your car without probable cause that a crime has occurred?" This is because when your car has been stopped by police, you have been seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. The stop itself triggers the Fourth Amendment, not the search (although there are more Fourth Amendment considerations if a search takes place). The answer to this question is "it depends." Brief, suspicionless seizures at fixed checkpoints have been held constitutional in order to apprehend illegal aliens, detect and remove drunk drivers from the road, and the Supreme Court has implied that these checkpoints would be allowed in order to verify drivers' licenses and registrations--as is the case here--but it has not so squarely held. Each of these are geared at serving permissible highway interests or protection of the border.
On the contrary, the Court has clearly and plainly held that checkpoint programs whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing are unconstitutional.
If they ask if they can look in your car, just say no.
L