Posted on January 30, 2008 by Travis Tormey

Search for Vehicle Identification Numbers

The United States Supreme Court has authorized exterior searches for vehicle identification numbers (VIN). This issue was analyzed in New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986). In this case, New York City police officers stopped a vehicle for speeding. The vehicle also had a cracked windshied which is a violation of New York law. The defendant exited the vehicle and provided the police with proof of registration and insurance but no driver's license.One of the officers involved in the stop opened the door to examine the VIN, which was located on the left doorjamb of the vehicle. When the officer did not find the VIN there, he reached into the interior of the car in order to move some papers that were obstructing the area of the dashboard where the VIN is located on late model automobiles. When the officer did so, the officer saw the handle of a gun protruding from under the driver's seat. The weapon was immediately seized and the defendant was arrested.

The Supreme Court held that the VIN is a vital component in the regulation of automobiles. As such, motorists should expect a substantially diminished expectation of privacy in the VIN numbers to their vehicles. This is especially true of a driver who has committed a traffic violation. Since the VIN is generally accessible and visible from the exterior of the vehicle, an examination may not even constitute a search. Since there is no expectation of privacy in the VIN, no showing of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a violation of law is necessary for an examination from the exterior of the vehicle for this number. The Supreme Court found that it makes no difference that papers in the defendant's car obscured the VIN number from plain view. The Court held that efforts to restrict access to a particular area do not generate a reasonable expectation of privacy where none would otherwise exist.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on January 7, 2008 by Travis Tormey

When does Miranda apply?

It is now established that a detention which occurs during a motor vehicle stop by the police constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The question remains whether there is a requirement for the police to inform motorists of their Miranda right to remain silent during a motor vehicle detention. This question was answered in the US Supreme Court decision of Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984). The court held that the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona apply even in those situations where the defendant is arrested for a minor motor vehicle violation. If the police wish to conduct a custodial interrogation of the defendant, they must first inform him of his constitutional rights.

What about a motor vehicle detention that does not result in an arrest? Although there are many similarities between a motor vehicle detention and an arrest, the Court found two significant differences between a formal arrest and a roadside motor vehicle detention. First, the Court found that most traffic stops are usually temporary and brief. Driver's have an expectation that this short stop may result in a summons being issued and then they will be free to go on their way. The court found this strikingly different from a stationhouse interrogation where the questioning is usually prolonged and the defendant is often aware that the questioning will continue until the police obtain a confession. The second key difference the court emphasized is that during a typical traffic stop a motorist may not feel as though they are completely at the mercy of the police officer. The public nature of the stop reduces the ability of a police officer to use illegitimate means to elicit self-incriminating statements and also diminishes the driver's fear that if he does not cooperate, the police officer may become abusive.

As a result, the court ruled that individuals who are temporarily detained during an ordinary traffic stop are not in custody for purposes of Miranda. There is no requirement that police inform detained motorists of their Miranda rights unless or until the police place a given motorist or vehicle occupant under arrest and wish to conduct a custodial interrogation.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on October 26, 2007 by Travis Tormey

Fourth Amendment Rights and Warrantless Searches

For a 4th Amendment violation to occur, there must be government conduct. This usually occurs through police actions. Also, some items are so public in nature that they do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. Generally, garbage, bank accounts, and odors emanating from your luggage are public in nature and do not implicate 4th amendment protection. If the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area and item searched, then the police need a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate supported by probable cause and particularity in order to conduct a lawful search. However, there are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement that are considered lawful searches and will not be excluded in a court of law.

The first exception to the warrant requirement is known as “Exigent Circumstances”. These scenarios occur when the police are in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon or when there is evanescent evidence: evidence that burns up in your body such as blood alcohol level or balloons filled with drugs. Another important exception to the warrant requirement is a search incident to arrest. Due to concerns for officer safety and the preservation of evidence, the law allows a search incident to arrest of the individual so long as the arrest is lawful and the search is contemporaneous in time and place with the arrest. Moreover, the search is limited in geographic scope to within the wingspan of the arrested individual. A third important warrantless search exception deals with automobiles. If the officer has probable cause to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime then they are permitted to search the entire car. A fourth exception to the warrant requirement is the famous “Plain View” doctrine. The officers must have lawful access to the place from which the item can be plainly seen, lawful access to the object itself, and the criminality of the object must be readily apparent. A fifth exception to the warrant requirement occurs when an individual consents. This consent must be voluntary, not the product of police coercion. The person must have the authority to consent to the area or item searched. A sixth exception to the warrant requirement deals with Terry stops. Under the famous Terry decision, officers have a right to stop an individual if they have reasonable suspicion necessary to determine if criminal activity is afoot. If when stopping them the officer reasonably believes that the individual is armed and dangerous, officers are permitted to frisk the individual for weapons. If you detect contraband without manipulating the object, then the officer is permitted to seize this contraband as evidence of a crime. These exceptions are the main exceptions to the warrant requirement and permit law enforcement officers to conduct lawful searches absent the existence of a warrant supported by probable cause.

Tags: , , ,