Pennsylvania Cops No Longer Need Warrant to Search Vehicles

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Name Taken

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 23, 2010
    11,891
    Central
    So PA is just in line with SCOTUS and the rest of the majority of the United States.

    The majority of the states allow for Probable Cause searches of vehicles under Carroll Vs. US dating back to 1920ish.

    It's not earth shattering other then PA is now in line just about every other state besides Alaska and a few others.

    But I'm sure someone here is upset by this without taking the time to read or understand the case law, exceptions, and how it's applied in practice.

    Every year police win a few cases and get smacked down with a few cases. The cases that are "wins" for for "we the people" just never get posted. Take a glance at Gant v. Az a few years ago. Gave defendants more rights then previously accepted by the courts.
     

    highwayheat

    highwayheat
    Jun 13, 2012
    588
    Ceciltucky
    Some states are more restrictive when it comes to searches of a motor vehicle. PA may have required a warrant in the past even if odor was detected and consent was denied. Washington state and a few others still require a search warrant even if the contraband is in plain view. It is just a longer process requiring the LEO to detain the car and the driver/occupants while applying for a warrant. In MD if I smell the odor of marijuana (fresh or burnt), observe it in plain view, or recieve an ommission of it being possessed, then I am conducting a warrantless Proabale Cause search without all the red tape of some other states. It just depends on the case law for area.
     

    highwayheat

    highwayheat
    Jun 13, 2012
    588
    Ceciltucky
    So PA is just in line with SCOTUS and the rest of the majority of the United States.

    The majority of the states allow for Probable Cause searches of vehicles under Carroll Vs. US dating back to 1920ish.

    It's not earth shattering other then PA is now in line just about every other state besides Alaska and a few others.

    But I'm sure someone here is upset by this without taking the time to read or understand the case law, exceptions, and how it's applied in practice.

    Every year police win a few cases and get smacked down with a few cases. The cases that are "wins" for for "we the people" just never get posted. Take a glance at Gant v. Az a few years ago. Gave defendants more rights then previously accepted by the courts.

    In Gant V. AZ the officer involved essentially did not articulate his case very well. Most S/A's I have talked to will go forward with an case as long as you can articualte in depth why you conducted a search in certain circumstances. For example, If an individual is arrested for driving while suspended and does not have an I.D. or claims he knew nothing about the suspension. The officer in a search incident to arrest searches the vehicle for a government issued photo I.D. or MVA/court paperwork stating the defendant was suspended which is evidence that may be related to the intial offense for arrest. In the search for the I.D./license paperwork, drugs/narcotics are discovered. If the officer articulated the search was based on aquiring evidence of driving under suspension or failure to provide sufficient identification then the drug/narcotic charge would most likely stick as well.
     

    Name Taken

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 23, 2010
    11,891
    Central
    In Gant V. AZ the officer involved essentially did not articulate his case very well. Most S/A's I have talked to will go forward with an case as long as you can articualte in depth why you conducted a search in certain circumstances. For example, If an individual is arrested for driving while suspended and does not have an I.D. or claims he knew nothing about the suspension. The officer in a search incident to arrest searches the vehicle for a government issued photo I.D. or MVA/court paperwork stating the defendant was suspended which is evidence that may be related to the intial offense for arrest. In the search for the I.D./license paperwork, drugs/narcotics are discovered. If the officer articulated the search was based on aquiring evidence of driving under suspension or failure to provide sufficient identification then the drug/narcotic charge would most likely stick as well.

    Okay...but what if they hand you the ID? I'm not real sure a Judge is going to accept that you reasonable believed his mail regarding his driving status would be in his car. I first year lawyer is going to raise all kinds of questions. I for one have my doubts that someone is keeping their MVA mail in their vehicle without seeing some sort of evidence pointing me to that direction. A blanket statement that you were looking for mail is not strong unless a lot of stops you've done previously have turned this up. IMHO most officers don't find MVA mail in vehicles.

    Before it was a non issue if they were legally arrested the search was legal. Now not so much.

    Say you stop the car because it's a suspect in a shoplifting. Once stop you see in plain view all the stolen property on passenger seat. You recover said property. You've thus lost your search of the rest of the vehicle.

    So it did restrict police action a good bit compared to how police work was done before where if you had an arrest you had the car no matter what. There are plenty of situations where your "articulation" theory just doesn't apply to the search of a vehicle.

    The point of my post was not to engage in a "what if's" about AZ v. Gant. It was to point out recent opposing case law to support the "police state" stuff people were posting. Every year the police win a few cases and lose a few cases. That was my point and evidence to support such.
     

    highwayheat

    highwayheat
    Jun 13, 2012
    588
    Ceciltucky
    Okay...but what if they hand you the ID? I'm not real sure a Judge is going to accept that you reasonable believed his mail regarding his driving status would be in his car. I first year lawyer is going to raise all kinds of questions. I for one have my doubts that someone is keeping their MVA mail in their vehicle without seeing some sort of evidence pointing me to that direction. A blanket statement that you were looking for mail is not strong unless a lot of stops you've done previously have turned this up. IMHO most officers don't find MVA mail in vehicles.

    Before it was a non issue if they were legally arrested the search was legal. Now not so much.

    Say you stop the car because it's a suspect in a shoplifting. Once stop you see in plain view all the stolen property on passenger seat. You recover said property. You've thus lost your search of the rest of the vehicle.

    So it did restrict police action a good bit compared to how police work was done before where if you had an arrest you had the car no matter what. There are plenty of situations where your "articulation" theory just doesn't apply to the search of a vehicle.

    The point of my post was not to engage in a "what if's" about AZ v. Gant. It was to point out recent opposing case law to support the "police state" stuff people were posting. Every year the police win a few cases and lose a few cases. That was my point and evidence to support such.

    This is not a blanket statement about every vehicle having MVA mail to warrant a search. Some have had the mail and I usually discover that fact through plain view or during the roadside interview. I am very thorough in my interview of individuals engaged in possible law violations outside of minor traffic. Like I stated before the facts to warrant the search would need to be very articulated and support the search. I do not search cars just to search. That is a sloppy way of conducting police work and will result in bad case law just to search just because. I make sure when I am conducting investigations beyond that of a traffic stop I stay within the scope of the 4th Amendment. In almost 15 years of service I yet to have a case thrown out over a illegal search and siezure. Defense atttoney's will always try to make a case for illegal search and seizure and quite a few have no idea about current case law. It's there jobs, even the first year full of piss, vinegar and very little real world experience. I usually end up educating the defense attorney and showing them the current standing case law. As far as the shoplifting example above goes you may not have the rest of the car under the scope of a search under some circumstances. However, depending on the circumastaces surrounding the vehcile it may need to be impounded for safe keeping in the event of an arrest. The vehicle can then be inventoried completly under current caselaw if the police departments policy is to due so for the safe keeping and inventoring of the vehicles contents. If the LEO abides by the policy of the inventory then any additional evidence of the shoplifting or additional crimes was discovered in good faith. On the flipside of the shoplifting example there may be other elements related to the crime. A clothing description of the suspect or bags (booster bags) used to remove the items from the stores may have been observed by a witness. A search of the trunk would be warranted to recover the other elements of the crime that were observed by the witness during the commission of the crime. All of the examples I stated above would need to support the evidence and I would need to fully articulate my actions. I personally do take actions or extend a search unless I know it's within the scope of the 4th Amendment and is concrete in the charging and prosecution of a case. Any actions I take are done so under the scope of the law so I do not damage my credibilty in court. THere will always be LEO's that take it a step too far. People start making assumptions that all LEO's believe in a police state, because of the actions of a few. That is simply not the case.
     

    Docster

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 19, 2010
    9,768
    A nice synopsis.

    The district attorney said the ruling puts Pennsylvania in line with federal law and many other states.

    Locals stressed that probable cause to stop a vehicle does not equate with probable cause to search it.

    A driver can still refuse if an officer asks for consent to search a car. The officer can then only search if he/she has probable cause to do so, or a warrant. A driver refusing consent, alone, does not give a police officer probable cause to search.
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,643
    PA
    The article and it's details vary from wrong to WTF.

    So basically a guy gets pulled over for tint, the officer smells pot, the guy consents to a search, police find 2 bricks of pot under his hood. Are they arguing tint does not constitute probable cause to pull a vehicle over? And the article seriously printed a legal opinon from "locals"? It looks like the article is insinuating that previously an officer stops and detains a driver, obtains probable cause, obtains a warrant, then searches it, with any contraband requiring probable cause in addition to a warrant to be admissible. Now veh pulled over, probable cause, search, evidence found through probable cause is admissible, pretty much like everywhere else since the 20's?

    Looking further, it used to require probable cause AND either a warrant OR exigent circumstance(a really loose EC interpretation judging by case law) to search a vehicle without consent in PA, so there really isn't much change, lack of probable cause is still a defense, and possibly a better one being there was not judicial oversight at the time, and arguing there was not exigent circumstance although never successful before is pretty much off the table now. The only issue is that the PA constitution is worded slightly differently than the US constitution, and a search of a car or "possession" was more in line with a search of a house previously, erring on the side of freedom and judicial oversight IMO, now being a vehicle search requires only PC, yet remains in most aspects of the law, and in the PA constitution at the same level as a home, could this lower the bar for searching a house? It hasn't everywhere else, and the standard may be set higher with subsequent PA court cases being this one was pretty bad, and probably shouldn'y have made it as far as it did being there was consent. The opinions stating this ruling gets PA "in line" with federal "standards" is BS that ignores state rights. PA through it's citizens and representatives has the right to place added restrictions on state search/seizure authority in addition to federal restrictions. US constitutional standards apply as a floor that freedom cannot be infringed beyond, a bare minimum it is not a "standard" and certainly is not a ceiling
     

    edhallor

    Active Member
    Feb 23, 2010
    749
    Aberdeen
    Ridiculous. The Police State continues to expand and our rights continue to erode.:mad54:

    http://lancasteronline.com/news/loc...cle_6a407fc6-d077-11e3-8025-0017a43b2370.html

    Not unless Pa. found a way to usurp the Constitution. POLICE can only search those areas of the car that is easily accessable to the Driver or Passanger, unless he has PC or permission.
    When you are stopped, keep your mouth shut and answer what you are asked, if possible with yes or no only. Contrary to what Mom said, lie if possible
    If Pa is in fact doing that, please let me be stopped in Pa. I understand Violation of Civil Rights pay very well. What was that Group Dewye, Cheetim and Howie.

    Eddie O
     

    Indiana Jones

    Wolverine
    Mar 18, 2011
    19,480
    CCN
    So PA is just in line with SCOTUS and the rest of the majority of the United States.

    The majority of the states allow for Probable Cause searches of vehicles under Carroll Vs. US dating back to 1920ish.

    It's not earth shattering other then PA is now in line just about every other state besides Alaska and a few others.

    But I'm sure someone here is upset by this without taking the time to read or understand the case law, exceptions, and how it's applied in practice.

    Every year police win a few cases and get smacked down with a few cases. The cases that are "wins" for for "we the people" just never get posted. Take a glance at Gant v. Az a few years ago. Gave defendants more rights then previously accepted by the courts.


    STOP with your factual ********! Let us twist it, and bash it before we read it. Gosh!


    Sent from the Bantu Wind using Tapatalk.
     

    Name Taken

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 23, 2010
    11,891
    Central
    POLICE can only search those areas of the car that is easily accessable to the Driver or Passanger, unless he has PC or permission.

    Where did you study criminal law? They can't search any part of the car absent PC, consent, or a warrant. There is some gray area for "Terry Frisking" a car but at last that isn't a "search" as you described.


    Yes it makes much more sense for the officer, with probable cause, to detain you, tow your vehicle, apply for a search warrant, search the vehicle, find the illegal contraband, then arrest you. Delaying the process for several hours and leaving you with a tow bill. As opposed to accepting the Carroll Doctrine as a feasible alternative.
     
    Mar 31, 2011
    676
    Frederick, MD
    Haha I think it is hilarious that people saw this and are going crazy. Carroll v US 1925 covers this if people care to read. This does not allow police to search your car for no reason. I made the mistake of reading comments on the NRAs Facebook page regarding this. The ignorance and emotional posts are incredible. These are the same people that "know their rights". Perhaps not as well as they should.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    SlotMachine

    Member
    Feb 6, 2012
    90
    Seven Valleys, PA
    ive been pulled over twice (for brake lights, damn bulbs) and told the officer i was carrying. This led to requests to search the vehicle (which is usually loaded with garbage since i spend more hours in my car than anywhere else) which I let them waste their time doing. I have nothing to hide. They even found a thumb drive ive been trying to find for the last couple months. So they did me a good service :)
     

    JasonB

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 4, 2012
    2,580
    Belcamp
    ive been pulled over twice (for brake lights, damn bulbs) and told the officer i was carrying. This led to requests to search the vehicle (which is usually loaded with garbage since i spend more hours in my car than anywhere else) which I let them waste their time doing. I have nothing to hide. They even found a thumb drive ive been trying to find for the last couple months. So they did me a good service :)

    If you've already told them that you are carrying a gun why would they think you have hidden guns?
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Still requires probable cause for a search.

    But allows police to find PC after the fact. The warrant process is designed to force athorities to go on record. Now they can play " I told you so" games. Moreover I can tell you that in NYC no PC is required as a matter of policy.
    We all thought this was not so bad when it started in NYC as well.


    Learn from NYC.
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,643
    PA
    ive been pulled over twice (for brake lights, damn bulbs) and told the officer i was carrying. This led to requests to search the vehicle (which is usually loaded with garbage since i spend more hours in my car than anywhere else) which I let them waste their time doing. I have nothing to hide. They even found a thumb drive ive been trying to find for the last couple months. So they did me a good service :)

    It's your right to refuse, also your choice to wave that right as you do. PA also does not have a requirement to inform if you are carrying, you cannot be disarmed without cause, and carrying in itself is not PC for a search, or suspicion of a crime. I have nothing to hide, but my rights are too important to me to hand over without cause. I have informed dispatch I was carrying(along with a really good description of myself) mostly for my own protection when I have interacted with the police as a witness. Went through an ICE checkpoint, was cooperative till the officer asked for a search, then simple "I do not consent, am I free to go, Am I being detained, repeat" for about 10 seconds till he smiled, nodded, and waved me through, no reason to inform in that case.

    But allows police to find PC after the fact. The warrant process is designed to force athorities to go on record. Now they can play " I told you so" games. Moreover I can tell you that in NYC no PC is required as a matter of policy.
    We all thought this was not so bad when it started in NYC as well.


    Learn from NYC.

    Not the case per YPD, and my state Rep. PC is required to perform the search without consent, they cannot argue PC after they perform a search without it, and happen to find something. The only way they might be able to get around it is to lie, say they find drugs sans PC or consent, then state they "smelled it" later on, in that case any proof otherwise would get the case dismissed. Cases are still going on, and other departments may be different. but there is a big difference between having PC and not having PC prior to a search, the difference resulting from this particular case is officers don't need to present PC to a judge to verify PC via warrant.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,945
    Messages
    7,259,799
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom