The Automobile Search Exception to the 4th Amendment
The Automobile Search Exception to the 4th Amendment
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1 10 of the South Carolina Constitution provide protections against warrantless police searches and seizures. Evidence seized in violation of these requirements should be suppressed by the Court unless an exception applies. One common exception is searches that arise as a result of searches of automobiles. This article discusses that exception as it is applied in South Carolina.
South Carolina Courts have continuously held that there is an exception to the warrant requirement for evidence seized from an automobile. The rationale behind this exception is twofold. First because an automobile is mobile, and any evidence contained can be easily removed from the police jurisdiction and time is more critical. Second there is perceived to be a lower expectation of privacy of personal effects and papers that are in transit compared to items that are secured in one's home or office.
In order for the police to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile prior to an arrest being made they must establish probable cause. This is the same probable cause standard that would be necessary fora judge to issue a warrant. Probable cause means that a reasonable man would find it more likely than not that a specific, tangible crime was afoot. This means the police have to be looking for contraband related to a specific crime, not just contraband in general.
If probable cause exists, it gives the police the right to conduct a full search of the automobile and allpackages contained therein. It doesn't matter if the package is owned by someone other than the owner or operator of the automobile. It is required however that the package or container searched must be relevant to the specific tangible crime the police have probable cause to investigate. For example if there was probable cause to believe that stolen power tools were in an automobile a warrantless search of a small paper bag may be improper. If the officer's assertion of probable cause is later challenged in Court a judge could decide to suppress, or throw out, the evidence recovered.
If an automobile is impounded or taken into police custody as a result of an arrest the police may be able to conduct a warrantless inventory of the contents of the automobile without a warrant. If this inventory results in discovering contraband or other evidence this may also serve as an exception to the general warrant requirement. The police must establish a set procedure and routine for inventory searches in order for this exception to be applicable.
The police or prosecution in a criminal case always has the burden of establishing a lawful basis to searching an automobile without a warrant. One of the most common ways they have of establishing an exception is that they received consent prior to the search. It should go without saying that if an individual believes that a search will be inconvenient or not in their best interest that they are always within their rights to refuse to consent or approve
The law of police searches and seizures is complicated and constantly being modified and interpreted by our Courts. It is important to always have an attorney review the circumstances of any police searches or seizures that result in criminal charges or evidence to be used in a criminal case. This article is designed to provide a generally introduction to this topic as it relates to automobile searches, it should not be taken as legal advice and you should always consult with an attorney regarding any specific situation.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1 10 of the South Carolina Constitution provide protections against warrantless police searches and seizures. Evidence seized in violation of these requirements should be suppressed by the Court unless an exception applies. One common exception is searches that arise as a result of searches of automobiles. This article discusses that exception as it is applied in South Carolina.
South Carolina Courts have continuously held that there is an exception to the warrant requirement for evidence seized from an automobile. The rationale behind this exception is twofold. First because an automobile is mobile, and any evidence contained can be easily removed from the police jurisdiction and time is more critical. Second there is perceived to be a lower expectation of privacy of personal effects and papers that are in transit compared to items that are secured in one's home or office.
In order for the police to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile prior to an arrest being made they must establish probable cause. This is the same probable cause standard that would be necessary fora judge to issue a warrant. Probable cause means that a reasonable man would find it more likely than not that a specific, tangible crime was afoot. This means the police have to be looking for contraband related to a specific crime, not just contraband in general.
If probable cause exists, it gives the police the right to conduct a full search of the automobile and allpackages contained therein. It doesn't matter if the package is owned by someone other than the owner or operator of the automobile. It is required however that the package or container searched must be relevant to the specific tangible crime the police have probable cause to investigate. For example if there was probable cause to believe that stolen power tools were in an automobile a warrantless search of a small paper bag may be improper. If the officer's assertion of probable cause is later challenged in Court a judge could decide to suppress, or throw out, the evidence recovered.
If an automobile is impounded or taken into police custody as a result of an arrest the police may be able to conduct a warrantless inventory of the contents of the automobile without a warrant. If this inventory results in discovering contraband or other evidence this may also serve as an exception to the general warrant requirement. The police must establish a set procedure and routine for inventory searches in order for this exception to be applicable.
The police or prosecution in a criminal case always has the burden of establishing a lawful basis to searching an automobile without a warrant. One of the most common ways they have of establishing an exception is that they received consent prior to the search. It should go without saying that if an individual believes that a search will be inconvenient or not in their best interest that they are always within their rights to refuse to consent or approve
The law of police searches and seizures is complicated and constantly being modified and interpreted by our Courts. It is important to always have an attorney review the circumstances of any police searches or seizures that result in criminal charges or evidence to be used in a criminal case. This article is designed to provide a generally introduction to this topic as it relates to automobile searches, it should not be taken as legal advice and you should always consult with an attorney regarding any specific situation.