Mark Thompson Criminal Law Blog on Lawyers.com

In a decision released yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court placed greater restrictions on the ability of police officers to search the vehicles of individuals they arrest. Although in general police are supposed to get a warrant before performing a search, there are a number of exceptions to that rule. One exception, which police officers have relied on for years, is the ability to search an occupant’s vehicle “incident to” their arrest of that person. According to the majority opinion released yesterday, that exception has resulted in “Countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious that a traffic violation... (who) have had their constitutional right to the security of their private effects violated.” 

Limiting this exception, the Court held that warrantless vehicle searches should only be allowed in two situations: when the person arrested is close enough to the car to reach in, possibly grab a weapon or tamper with evidence; or when the arresting officer “reasonably believes that the vehicle contains evidence” pertinent to the crime that prompted the arrest.

This particular case involved an Arizona man who was arrested on an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. After he was handcuffed and put in a patrol car, his car was searched, leading to evidence and an initial conviction on drug charges. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding the search of the vehicle violated the constitutional ban of unreasonable searches and seizures. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed.

This decision limits a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which had held that the articles within a vehicle’s passenger compartment are “generally… within the ‘area into which an arrestee might reach.’” Yesterday the Court rejected a broad reading of that case, which had been interpreted to allow police to search vehicles, even if the arrestee was handcuffed and in the squad car, with no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle.

The reaction from law enforcement seems to be one of disappointment, and perhaps some worry that the result will be less drug and weapons charges. However, the decision does allow police to search “when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” That might mean many arrests for traffic offenses will not by themselves allow police officers to search vehicles – but arrests for other kinds of crimes may supply a basis for a search. Even if an officer pulls someone over for speeding, but develops a suspicion there might be drugs in the car – perhaps after faintly smelling marijuana – a search of the vehicle will still be permitted.

Disagreeing with the majority, Justice Alito argued this decision “is virtually certain to confuse law enforcement officers and judges for some time to come.” Some argue it could also lead to a temptation for police to leave the occupant of a vehicle unsecured, in the belief that they are acting within the bounds of the 4^th Amendment and thus are able to search the vehicle. It could also lead to more vehicle impoundments, after which the police are free to search the vehicle without a warrant.

 This summary was drafted by attorney Caitlin Moore for Thompson Law Office, Iowa City.