Search and Seizure of a Motor Vehicle - Research Paper Example

 Search and Seizure of a Motor Vehicle Outline Introduction Description of Search and seizure: a process by which police officer or any other authority figure who suspects that a crime has been committed may perform a search of an individual’s property and confiscate any relevant evidence(Latzer, 1991) In most common law one must have a warrant to do this Vehicles are often exempted because of their mobility which easily facilitates flight With probable cause and while within the law, a police officer can seize and search a vehicle and its contents Exemptions Consent exemption(Neubauer and Fradella 2010) The police office may request an individual to let them search their vehicle and person The individual should feel at liberty to refuse for the exemption to be valid The police officer does not have to inform them of the right to refuse If one had been legally detained, they should be free to go be for they can give consent Plain view exemption An officer can seize suspicious objects in plain view without needing a warrant. The objects illegal nature must be immediately apparent Officers are free to externally examine vehicles that have been parked in public places Officers can seize anything contraband i.e weapon they spot in a car without a warrant and use it in court Pervasively regulated business exception(Latzer, 1991) The pervasively regulated business has lower privacy expectation They can be stopped and searched for the vehicle registration number There must be a minimum justification for stopping vehicles under this exemption Investigatory traffic stops exemption (Kernats, 2002) An officer stops a motorist when they suspect a crime may have been committed They must stop the car based on legal reasons Justification for search depends on officers training and experience Tips are sufficient justification only if independently collaborated Custodial arrest Exemption (Kernats, 2002) The police are allowed to search the areas a suspect controlled inside a vehicle It is only valid if the driver was actually arrested Police are allowed to take a blood sample in the case of a drunk driver Stop and frisk exemption (Inbau and Thompson, 1999) It refers to a brief stop when an officer may frisk the occupant of a car, but with reasonable course Justification includes suspicion of carrying weapons Probable cause can depend on officer’s perception of prevailing circumstances Introduction Search and seizure is the process involving a search of an individual’s property by an officer of the law who has reason to believe the subject has committed, or been used in the committing of a crime or otherwise involved in unlawful activity. This is a legal procedure that is allowed in majority common laws; however, the fourth amendment in the constitution of the United States guarantees the freedom of citizens from unreasonable searches and seizure on their property (Thomas, 2010). Thus, before a search and seizure of properties is carried out, it is incumbent of the officer involved to procure a warrant from a judge to authorize him/her to conduct a search on a person or a place. Retrospectively, in the early days of automobiles, the courts created exceptions for vehicle searches stating that a vehicle may be searched without a warrant being required owing to a vehicles mobility which may allow them to be swiftly removed from a jurisdiction. Thus if a police officer undertaking the search had probable cause and believe the vehicle contained contraband they may detain the vehicle and its contents and conduct a search, while they are covered by exemptions that do not go against the fourth amendment(Davies, 2010). This paper examines the Various Situations That Can Result In A Search And Seizure By Officers Of The Law In Regard To Motor Vehicles; it discusses the exemptions under which a vehicle and/or occupants withal may be searched without a warrant. The exemptions covered include, consent exemption where and individual consents to the search, plain view exemption where an officer can seize suspicious objects in plain sight, in case of pervasively regulated business in which the government has an interest. The other exemptions included an investigatory traffic stop when a police officer reasonably suspects a motorist has committed a crime and stops them, the custodial arrest exemption and finally the stop and frisk exemption. Consent Exemption Under the fourth amendment, a warrantless search of a motor a vehicle can be allowed based on certain exceptions that are contained therein. These include; the consent exemption; this authorizes law offices to search any vehicle or closed container in a vehicle as long as the owner of the aforementioned property has acquiesced to the search. A determination of the consensual nature of the search is made based on the totality test; for instance, in a random search, the occupants of a vehicle may be asked by officers to let them search their luggage. The consent will only be valid under the circumstances if a reasonable person would feel at liberty to deny them consent and bring to an end the encounter with the police officer. In addition, the officers are not obligated to inform the persons of their right to refuse to be searched (Neubauer and Fradella, 2010); nonetheless, such consent is not required f individuals who have been detained in a traffic checkpoint. A consent search can only be validated in such as case if the person was legally detained and free to go; for example, it is was a vehicle stop; justified by speeding of any other traffic violation. The police officer will detain them, issue a ticket or warning, depending on the circumstances and informed the driver they were free to go, after this, they may then ask for leave to search the contents of the car. The Plain View Exception The plain view exception, allows a law enforcement officer to seize and hold; without a warrant an item in plain sight if they have probable cause to believe do so, without requiring a warrant as long as it is perceived from a lawful vantage point. In addition, the illegal nature of the object in question must be immediately ostensible, for example, should there be justification to believe a car has been used in committing a crime, a limited physical and the officer concerned may undertake external examination. However, this must happen while the vehicle is parked in a public place where it is in the eyes of the public and the office needs must have legal right of access to that location. Any objection in plain view of a law enforcement officer can be seized and later used as evidence in court ; for instance, if one parks their car and an officer sees a weapon on contraband material within the car possible on the back seat of the floor. Nevertheless, it is not conditional that the officer must be able to prove that the object was used in a crime or is contraband; in such a situation the mere suspicion is sufficient grounds to seize material. Pervasively Regulated Business Exception The pervasively regulated business exception lowers the expectations of privacy for vehicles owing to the governments’ pervasive regulation of vehicular travel in public roads. In the case of New York vs Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986), it was determined that in matters of vehicle identification number, there are no expectations of privacy and police can without requiring a warrant enter a vehicle to look for the registration number (Latzer, 1991).Nevertheless, warrantless inspection must be justified by the existence of substantiated government interest as well as a minimum degree of certainty by the concerned officers before they can embark on the search. Investigatory Traffic Stop Exemption Investigatory traffic stop is done when an officer stops a motorist when they suspect a crime may have been committed; however, police cannot just do this at random, and such stops must be based on reasonable suspicion. What falls under reasonable suspicion is based on objective observations as well as the concerned officer’s knowledge and experience sufficient to cause reasonable belief of the individual’s participation in illegal activity(Kernats, 2002). Anonymous tips that have been collaborated by disinterested police investigation will qualify to pass the totality test for the aforementioned search; conversely non-corroborated anonymous tips do not count. Custodial arrest Exemption In the course of a custodial arrest of a vehicle’s passenger or driver, the police are allowed to search the areas that they deemed d to have been in the control of the arrested party exempting those of other occupants in the vehicle not under arrest. However, the search and incident arrest exemption is not valid unless the driver is arrested; however, the search is restricted to the area from which the person may have concealed weapons or items that could be used as evidence (McInnis, 2010). Under the same exemption, police are allowed to obtain a blood sample in an incident of drunk driving without a warrant as long as they are certain that the blood sample obtained will provide evidence of the crime. Notwithstanding, the blood sample must be obtained in a reasonable manner and the defendant must not present reasonable objection to the action such as a possible negative health reaction to the process. Stop and Frisk Exemption The stop and frisk exception, refers to a brief stop when an officer may frisk one albeit not necessarily based on a probable cause; in a traffic stop ; the same may be done to any or all the occupants of a car (Inbau and Thompson, 1999). However, in the latter situation, the officer should have sufficient probable cause to prove the occupants of the vehicle may be armed. Reasonable cause in this case will depend on the officer’s objective reasoning and perception of the circumstances including consideration of a particular area as a high risk one in terms of armed crime. References Davies, T. Y. (2010). The supreme courtgiveth and the supreme court taketh away: The century of fourth amendment "search and seizure" doctrine. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), 933-1041. Inbau, F. E., and Thompson, J. R. (1999). Stop and frisk: The power and the obligation of the police. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 89(4), 1445-1447. Kernats, M l. (July, 2002). Inspection, Search and Seizure of Motor.Vehicles and Drivers.Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Office of General Counsel, Wisconsin Department of Transporation. Latzer B. (1991) State Constitutions and Criminal Justice.Califonia: ABC-CLIO, McInnis.T. (2010).The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment.Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Neubauer D. W., Fradella H, F. ( 2010) America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System..London:Cengage Learning. Read More