Is it legal for a police officer to search passengers in a car for a traffic violation?

Forums: Legal, Law, Justice, Search And Seizure, 4th Amendment
Email this Topic • Print this Page

yeah, umm..

simple question.. iono where to look up alws and stuff like that.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,937 • Replies: 12

No top replies

@OGIONIK,

wow there is only one thing i read similar to this..

i guess, if the driver consents to a search of the vehicle then that means the passengers personal property, so if i take my stuff out does that still apply?

will they let me take my belongings out?

lol.

double lolol.

0 Replies

@OGIONIK,

Start here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_n3_88/ai_n28711711/
You are looking for info on the 4th Amendment and the reasonableness of searches and seizures. There is a LOT of info; this has been debated and litigated for decades. Happy reading.

0 Replies

The U.S. Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. ____ (2009).

http://supreme.justia.com/us/555/07-1122/opinion.html

Quote:

For the duration of a traffic stop, we recently confirmed, a police officer effectively seizes "everyone in the vehicle," the driver and all passengers. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 255, 127 S. Ct. 2400, 168 L. Ed. 2d 132 (2007). Accordingly, we hold that, in a traffic-stop setting, the first Terry condition -- a lawful investigatory stop -- is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation. The police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity. To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous.

The scope of a Terry frisk (patdown of the outer garments) for weapons is limited. See, e.g., Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-2019.ZO.html

In another recent case, the Supreme Court narrowed the circumstances under which the police may search a vehicle as an incident of arrest:

Arizona v. Gant
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

lol they say in public interest when referring to a p[olice officers safety.

No.

that is private interest.

2 Replies

@OGIONIK,

In earlier interpretations of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court required state actors

LOL @ the actor part..

a more truthful statement Ive never heard.

0 Replies

@OGIONIK,

Nonetheless, the Court found that the safety of the officer outweighed the private interest at stake

i thought citizens were public interest?

so police = public interest

and citizens = private interest?

they have things rather backwards yes?

police protect the public, citizens are the public.

and they say our rights are a private matter?

WHAT THE ****?

Consequently, the Court held that the safety of an officer making a lawful traffic stop outweighed the individual citizen's liberty interest

if our rights arent the focus of the protections of the law, then **** these peices of ****.

0 Replies

What case are you discussing, OGIONIK?

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

iono i read too much

all i got out of it is if the driver gives consent then your property is automatically consented to be seearched as well.

well, its not consented, but they search it anyway.

so much for laws when noone follows them and bends them for profit etc..

1 Reply

@OGIONIK,

OGIONIK wrote:

all i got out of it is if the driver gives consent then your property is automatically consented to be seearched as well.

This is not true. That's why I asked what case you read.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

i read a few times if the driver consents to a seacrh it means anything inside the vehicle as well.

0 Replies

Consent to search is an exception to the warrant requirement. Consent to search may be given by a person who possesses common authority over property. The driver of a vehicle does not "automatically" possess common authority over his passenger's property. For instance, a male driver does not possess common authority over his female passenger's purse or luggage. Additionally, other physically present persons who possess common authority over the property may object to the search. See Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry prevails [over the consent of his fellow occupant], rendering the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him).

0 Replies

Unless there is a probable cause to believe that the passengers are doing or possessing something prohibited under the law then no search could be done. the exception would be if they consented to the search.

0 Replies

Is it legal for a police officer to search passengers in a car for a traffic violation?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know