Can Police Search My Vehicle

[L-1]

Was your car towed from the scene?

[cdwjava]

Was your car towed from the scene?

Spokanedriver wrote this: "Because my vehicle was already in the drive, the officers gave my vehicle keys to my family who lived there and they just drove it and parked it next to their house."

[yoder440]

Your follow up post all but confirms a search incident to lawful arrest (or, possibly, an inventory search, if the car was impounded). More importantly, since nothing was found, any possible 4th Amendment violation is a non-issue.

Wow your a lot of help , everyone seems to forget that there must be probable cause for any action. The officer can't just keep digging in hopes he may find something he must have probable cause. If this probable cause turns something up that deems further search or arrest then fine but he Must have cause first. To many people are giving police way more power than the actually have.

[cdwjava]

Wow your a lot of help , everyone seems to forget that there must be probable cause for any action. The officer can't just keep digging in hopes he may find something he must have probable cause. If this probable cause turns something up that deems further search or arrest then fine but he Must have cause first. To many people are giving police way more power than the actually have.

Actually, the police can keep "digging" all they want. So long as the police do not otherwise violate the law and the detention is not unlawfully prolonged the police can keep asking questions and observing, and if anything pops up that gives the probable cause to make an arrest or conduct a search, that's the way it goes.

pg1067 was correct, though, in that an inventory search of the vehicle is permissible if someone is arrested and the vehicle is impounded. However, the OP stated that the vehicle was NOT impounded, therefore the police would need sufficient articulable probable cause to conduct a search. Whether they had it or not, we can't say. And, since no evidence was found, there's nothing to suppress.

[Harold99]

Actually, the police can keep "digging" all they want. So long as the police do not otherwise violate the law and the detention is not unlawfully prolonged the police can keep asking questions and observing, and if anything pops up that gives the probable cause to make an arrest or conduct a search, that's the way it goes.

pg1067 was correct, though, in that an inventory search of the vehicle is permissible if someone is arrested and the vehicle is impounded. However, the OP stated that the vehicle was NOT impounded, therefore the police would need sufficient articulable probable cause to conduct a search. Whether they had it or not, we can't say. And, since no evidence was found, there's nothing to suppress.

You seem to be agreeing...in that police cannot just keep digging because they have time limits. They can observe all they want within those time limits. And they can ask as many questions they want but none of them must be answered.

This vehicle was not impounded yet they searched it anyway. Therefore you agree again that the police were out of line.

And as for searching without a warrant, or probably cause, or without impounding the vehicle...it doesn't' matter if they did not find anything illegal with the search. Are you saying the police can search any house, and no harm no foul if they do not find anything illegal? I don't think so, but it seems to be what you are inferring. It is an illegal search regardless if they find something or not.

Informed citizens are just a PITA to cops, huh?

[cdwjava]

You seem to be agreeing...in that police cannot just keep digging because they have time limits. They can observe all they want within those time limits. And they can ask as many questions they want but none of them must be answered.

I suppose it depends on what you mean buy the term, "Digging." To us, it means asking questions, watching, listening, smelling, and generally snooping as we can.

This vehicle was not impounded yet they searched it anyway. Therefore you agree again that the police were out of line.

I don't know WHY they searched it, so I can't say they were out of line and neither can you. I see it as less likely that they had probable cause than that they did, but since I was not there, I can't say for sure.

And as for searching without a warrant, or probably cause, or without impounding the vehicle...it doesn't' matter if they did not find anything illegal with the search. Are you saying the police can search any house, and no harm no foul if they do not find anything illegal? I don't think so, but it seems to be what you are inferring. It is an illegal search regardless if they find something or not.

There are things that can be done including the potential for a lawsuit, but rare is the attorney that will expend his own time and resources for a lawsuit where there are no articulable damages. Even a federal suit with a nominal award can be a longshot and not too many attorneys are such idealists ... they have to pay rent and support themselves and their families. But, yeah, there are options if you think you were subject to a wrongful search: personnel complaint to the agency or a board or agency monitoring the agency, go to the media, hire an attorney, etc.

Informed citizens are just a PITA to cops, huh?

Not to me. I find that many people have enough info to get it all wrong and THINK they have it right, but, that's been MY experience. "I know my rights ..." <sigh>

[RJR]

My question involves police conduct in the State of: Washington

I was in a driveway of family members. I was arrested for reasons that had no relation to driving. After my arrest, do the police have the right to go through my vehicle and search it?

When arrested, I was standing at my drivers door, which was open. I was standing between the drivers door and the drivers seat. They did not casually look in my vehicle, they sat in it and went through the consoles and glove box.

If there are additional qualifiers, I can answer, but let me know if this is legal for them to do or if it violates my 4th amendment since I did not consent.

A careful reading of Gant, one of the most recent vehicle search cases, it appears to me the search was legal. Where you were standing you were without question a "Recent occupant" of the vehicle. You had easy access to the passenger compartment, therefore absent any other crucial factor, it was a search "incident to arrest", IMO that is.

VI

Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/332/

[cdwjava]

A careful reading of Gant, one of the most recent vehicle search cases, it appears to me the search was legal. Where you were standing you were without question a "Recent occupant" of the vehicle. You had easy access to the passenger compartment, therefore absent any other crucial factor, it was a search "incident to arrest", IMO that is.

VI

Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/332/

But, if spokanedriver was correct, he was arrested for interfering with a police officer. Not sure what kind of evidence might be present in the vehicle related to that offense.

But, as I said, we weren't there and it is possible that the search was conducted with probable cause not immediately apparent to us (or, apparently, to spokanedriver).

[RJR]

But, if spokanedriver was correct, he was arrested for interfering with a police officer. Not sure what kind of evidence might be present in the vehicle related to that offense.

But, as I said, we weren't there and it is possible that the search was conducted with probable cause not immediately apparent to us (or, apparently, to spokanedriver).

The crime charged here is not relevant. The relevant point is where he was standing when arrested, and Gant controls I would think.

[cdwjava]

The crime charged here is not relevant. The relevant point is where he was standing when arrested, and Gant controls I would think.

Gant states that it be done only if it is reasonable that evidence of the arrestee's offense might be found in the vehicle. Plus, if he had exited his vehicle prior to the arrest and the arrest was wholly unrelated to the vehicle, then under Gant a search wouldn't be acceptable.