There's a lot of talk around here about legal and illegal searches. Can someone explain what, exactly, would be probable cause to search one's vehicle without their consent? Say you get pulled over for a simple traffic violation, you aren't obviously high on something, and nothing suspicious is in view of the cop. Is there any way they could legally search you?
What, exactly, is probable cause for a vehicle search?
- Thread starter BigBlock
- Start date
- Status
The Deer Hunter
Member
"Is that marijuana i smell? I think you are under the influence of illegal drugs..Please step out of the car with your hands in the air"
From what I've heard its that easy.
From what I've heard its that easy.
Sure. Have a can of Folgers in plain view and all of a sudden you're a drug Kingpin.
In reality, they can just about always find a reason to search your vehicle just the same as if a cop follows you for a block he can find a reason to pull you over.
Just the way it is.
There's always the all-feared "I thought I smelled marijuana" probable cause.
Biker
In reality, they can just about always find a reason to search your vehicle just the same as if a cop follows you for a block he can find a reason to pull you over.
Just the way it is.
There's always the all-feared "I thought I smelled marijuana" probable cause.
Biker
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
So-called "probable cause" is anything a cop wants it to be—but we're not a police state, because the Supreme Court still meets in Washington, D.C.
rangermonroe
Member
I got the 'thought I smelled alky-haul'. 
Carroll Doctrine. Doctrine established in Carroll v. United States (1925) that established the admissibility of evidence obtained in a warrantless search of a vehicle....Just google Carroll Doctrine...
This has been discussed ad naseum for a basis to bash, guess who..
This has been discussed ad naseum for a basis to bash, guess who..
Last edited:
They don't even need probable cause to do some searches. If you get pulled over for a minor traffic violation, the officer can search at least a portion of the interior in what is the automobile equivalent of a "patdown" for weapons.
As for probable cause? The easiest way to get probable cause is to detain you just long enough so the drug dog can show up and take a few whiffs around your vehicle. If he gives a positive response, there's your probable cause.
As for probable cause? The easiest way to get probable cause is to detain you just long enough so the drug dog can show up and take a few whiffs around your vehicle. If he gives a positive response, there's your probable cause.
xd9fan
Member
yup
Obviously you did not read what I wrote...The Carroll Doctrine has EVERYTHING to do with Probable Cause and why you dont need a warrant..Read it and learn....Also about 5 threads up they are discussing the same thing in great detail......
Google is your friend....
themic
Member
Here's what I've picked up from reading around about this. First, you should divide the vehicle into 2 areas, the passenger compartment area and the trunk. To search the passenger area for weapons requires suspicion that the person/people in the car are presently armed and dangerous. To search the trunk requires probable cause that a crime has been committed or is being committed. Either way, for the search to be legal, the reasoning behind the search must be sound, or the evidence can't be used.
themic
Member
As I read it, the standard for a search warrant is probable cause. The standard for a vehicular search is probable cause. Probable cause is the same in either case. The difference seems to be in the amount of paperwork the officer has to do before a search.
themic
Member
Think, alot more than suspicion, but less than reasonable doubt. Something on the order of: some actual evidence of a crime is being spotted or heard or smelled -- but it doesn't have to be fingerprinted and DNA tested yet (cause it's still in the car). Please though I am not the final word - look to the courts they make these decisions every day and there's always new situations right on that borderline.
thexrayboy
Member
An officer can take you out of your car and search it merely by stating he "smelled an odor like marijuana" or "I smelled alcohol on his breath" or
"the driver was acting in a suspicious manner". No actual evidence is needed.
If the officer decides that he wants to look around in your vehicle he will
do so. If his decision to do so goes to court he will pull an excuse similar to one of the above out and use it. Since many of the criteria for probable cause relating to vehicle search are extremely subjective, as in "I smelled marijuana" vs "he was smelling my cheap airfreshner" officers know from experience that they do not have to have probable cause. They just need to be able to articulate in court that they believed they had probable cause.
It's impossible to prove or disprove intangibles like odors and suspicious activity. It's entirely subjective and the officer will count on that. It becomes his word vs your word. What are the odds of the judge believing the officer vs the citizen. Having probable cause is one thing being able to convince a judge or DA that you had probable cause after the fact is entirely different. That is the heart of the problem at hand.
"the driver was acting in a suspicious manner". No actual evidence is needed.
If the officer decides that he wants to look around in your vehicle he will
do so. If his decision to do so goes to court he will pull an excuse similar to one of the above out and use it. Since many of the criteria for probable cause relating to vehicle search are extremely subjective, as in "I smelled marijuana" vs "he was smelling my cheap airfreshner" officers know from experience that they do not have to have probable cause. They just need to be able to articulate in court that they believed they had probable cause.
It's impossible to prove or disprove intangibles like odors and suspicious activity. It's entirely subjective and the officer will count on that. It becomes his word vs your word. What are the odds of the judge believing the officer vs the citizen. Having probable cause is one thing being able to convince a judge or DA that you had probable cause after the fact is entirely different. That is the heart of the problem at hand.
Steve in PA
Member
"They don't even need probable cause to do some searches. If you get pulled over for a minor traffic violation, the officer can search at least a portion of the interior in what is the automobile equivalent of a "patdown" for weapons."
Wrong! The area in question can only be searched incident to an arrest. Getting pulled over for a simple traffic violation does NOT subject a person to this. I suggest you get your information from somewhere else because you have no idea what you are talking about.
"As for probable cause? The easiest way to get probable cause is to detain you just long enough so the drug dog can show up and take a few whiffs around your vehicle. If he gives a positive response, there's your probable cause."
A driver can only be held as long as a "normal" traffic stop would take, which depending on how long it takes to verify your information and write a citation (if you are getting one) lasts about 10-15 minutes. Again, get your information from somewhere else.
And the Carroll case does not give a LEO carte blanche to search, he still neeeds probable cause to search. Just because you are nervous is NOT probable cause for him to search. Lots of people are nervous about being stopped. If they smell alcohol, dope, etc........the LEO still needs to support his search.
Wrong! The area in question can only be searched incident to an arrest. Getting pulled over for a simple traffic violation does NOT subject a person to this. I suggest you get your information from somewhere else because you have no idea what you are talking about.
"As for probable cause? The easiest way to get probable cause is to detain you just long enough so the drug dog can show up and take a few whiffs around your vehicle. If he gives a positive response, there's your probable cause."
A driver can only be held as long as a "normal" traffic stop would take, which depending on how long it takes to verify your information and write a citation (if you are getting one) lasts about 10-15 minutes. Again, get your information from somewhere else.
And the Carroll case does not give a LEO carte blanche to search, he still neeeds probable cause to search. Just because you are nervous is NOT probable cause for him to search. Lots of people are nervous about being stopped. If they smell alcohol, dope, etc........the LEO still needs to support his search.
Once again, what is probable cause in on jurisdicition may not be in another and vice/versa. You have to know the case law in your area. And case law is continually changing.
The best anyone can do is speculate about what may or may not be probable cause based on some general guidelines and previous court decisions.
The only way to stay on top of this subject is to subscribe to a service that provides you with periodic updates, and even then you're probably not going to be current.
If there is or isn't probable cause for a vehicle search is going to depend on the total circumstances.
Don't base any decisions about how to carry your firearms or how to deal with the police or the courts based on what you read on an internet forum. If this is an issue that concerns you, make an appointment with a criminal defense attorney and get his advice......Of course that costs money...but if you operate on the edge of legality at all times then it will be money well spent.
Jeff
The best anyone can do is speculate about what may or may not be probable cause based on some general guidelines and previous court decisions.
The only way to stay on top of this subject is to subscribe to a service that provides you with periodic updates, and even then you're probably not going to be current.
If there is or isn't probable cause for a vehicle search is going to depend on the total circumstances.
Don't base any decisions about how to carry your firearms or how to deal with the police or the courts based on what you read on an internet forum. If this is an issue that concerns you, make an appointment with a criminal defense attorney and get his advice......Of course that costs money...but if you operate on the edge of legality at all times then it will be money well spent.
Jeff
That's probably a C- answer on your law school final at least if you are talking federal constitutional law. There may be some wacky outlier state cases of which I haven't heard. (State courts are free to interpet their own constitution in a more restrictive way.) The officer can certainly "frisk" the passenger compartment under the same circumstances they can frisk the person in the car. I'll give you cites tomorrow if you insist. It's late.
Hmmmmmmm...... a man in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.And from judge to judge, pc changes. From officer to officer, PC changes. (Some are more believable than others.) The question is inherently unanswerable. We could tell you hotter or colder, but there will never be a rigid line that allowing the good guys or the bad guys to know when it is crossed. Even reading caselaw tells you only that this judge found this set of facts to be enough or not enough. Cases usually aren't decided "as a matter of law", meaning that a+b+c= PC. Rather, the facts of each case are weighed by the judge, who assigns either much or little crediblility to the testimony and the witness, draws inferences, tosses it all in a PC-o-meter, and gets a yes or no result.
It does make the attorneys happy though, because there is ALWAYS an argument one way or the other and they get paid win or lose.
Do all you guys carry dope in your cars? Forget I asked that.
There is no set list for what can be considered "probable cause" for searching a vehicle. The term "probable cause" refers to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop that gave the officer reason to believe that the subject had violated the law in some way.
The question is, can the officer explain and articulate why *this* particular set of circumstances and evidence led him to believe there was a reasonable belief that a crime had been committed?
For example, "probable cause" to further investigate a driver for potential drunk driving might include: The smell of alcohol on the driver's breath. Slurred speech or confustion or physical evidence like an empty beer can in the passenger compartment.
Probable cause to search a vehicle for the presence of illegal drugs (for example) might include the smell of Marijuana in the vehicle or coming from the driver or the presence of what appears to a marijuana cigarette on the floorboard.
There can't be a "hard and fast" listing of what is, and isn't, probable cause because there are an infinite number of situations that can occur. The idea of "probable cause" is that the officer has to be able to articulate *some* reason for initiating a search of a vehicle (in this example) beyond a mere suspicion without any specific evidence. If the search is "iffy" the officer has to be able to explain why he thought "probable cause" existed based on the circumstances and his experience. Searches that are challenged usually seem to be upheld, but sometimes the courts will throw out the search and the results. It all depends on the specifics of that case.
I remember reading about one case where a judge ruled that a NRA membership window decal did *not* give officers "probable cause" to search a vehicle for weapons in the abscence of any other evidence of weapons and after the driver of the car denied the presence of a weapon in a vehicle. I don't have a cite, but I read it in a NRA magazine a few years ago, so a google search might turn it up if you want to know.
The question is, can the officer explain and articulate why *this* particular set of circumstances and evidence led him to believe there was a reasonable belief that a crime had been committed?
For example, "probable cause" to further investigate a driver for potential drunk driving might include: The smell of alcohol on the driver's breath. Slurred speech or confustion or physical evidence like an empty beer can in the passenger compartment.
Probable cause to search a vehicle for the presence of illegal drugs (for example) might include the smell of Marijuana in the vehicle or coming from the driver or the presence of what appears to a marijuana cigarette on the floorboard.
There can't be a "hard and fast" listing of what is, and isn't, probable cause because there are an infinite number of situations that can occur. The idea of "probable cause" is that the officer has to be able to articulate *some* reason for initiating a search of a vehicle (in this example) beyond a mere suspicion without any specific evidence. If the search is "iffy" the officer has to be able to explain why he thought "probable cause" existed based on the circumstances and his experience. Searches that are challenged usually seem to be upheld, but sometimes the courts will throw out the search and the results. It all depends on the specifics of that case.
I remember reading about one case where a judge ruled that a NRA membership window decal did *not* give officers "probable cause" to search a vehicle for weapons in the abscence of any other evidence of weapons and after the driver of the car denied the presence of a weapon in a vehicle. I don't have a cite, but I read it in a NRA magazine a few years ago, so a google search might turn it up if you want to know.
sacp81170a
Member
Exactly. Two of our part time officers are lawyers. On works for the state in Child Protective Services and the other is on the faculty of the Law School at the University of Arkansas. We get formal updates from them on a quarterly basis and the rules are changing constantly in our jurisdiction. I'm sure most departments spend some time keeping officers updated on current case law and any new laws or ordinances their state, county and city governments have seen fit to pass.
Asking a general question like "what constititutes PC for a vehicle search?" is kinda like asking "when should you draw your weapon in self defense?" The answer depends on the totality of circumstances and varies from situation to situation.
May I rephrase the question please.
Have any of you guys ever found a loose round of ammo in your car after a range trip? I can be arrested for that when I drive in to work. Per Chicago LEO and verified with a laywer.
Have any of you guys ever found used brass in your car (including .22 brass)? I can also be arrested for that. Verified with a laywer.
Chicago has a law against having ammo or any components thereof unless you have a firearms registered for that particular calibre. Oh BTW no handgun registration for over 20 years and since I only work in Chicago do not live there I cannot even register a .22 bolt action rifle.
So not everyone worried about searches is worried about drugs.
NukemJim
Last edited:
pacodelahoya
Member
Nukem, I'm not worried about guns or drugs. Pa is very gun friendly and I don't do drugs except the occasional brewski, and then I don't drive (don't care if anyone else does though). I'm more worried about the constant eroding of our civil rights and the looming police state that apparently many people welcome with open arms if it saves one child or increases thier bottom line.
Troutman
member
This might help. Best thing (if you get into trouble), see a lawyer.
Words in quotes (" ") needs to be followed up with the definition pertaining to.
I'm talking about the 4th Amendment.
Automobile Exception.
If the police have "probable cause" to believe that a vehicle such as an automobile contains, "contraband", "instrumentalities", or "evidence" of a crime, they may "search" the vehicle without a warrant.
Rationale.....Automobiles are mobile and so will not likely be available for search by the time an officer returns with a warrant.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has declared that people have a lesser expectation of "privacy" in their vehicles than their homes.
Note: If the police have "probable cause" to believe that the car itself is "contraband", it may be seized from a public place without a warrant.
1) Scope of Search
If the police have full "probable cause" to "search" a vehicle, they can “search” the entire vehicle (including the trunk) and all containers within the vehicle that might contain the object(s) for which they are searching. Thus, if the police have "probable cause" to believe that drugs are within the vehicle, they can search almost any container, but if they have "probable cause" to believe that an illegal alien is hiding inside the vehicle, they must limit their search to areas where a person could hide.
a) Passenger's Belongings
The "search" is not limited to the driver's belongings and may extend to packages belonging to a passenger. Like a driver, a passenger has a reduced expectation of privacy in a car.
b) Limited Probable Cause
If the police only have "probable cause" to "search" a container (recently) placed in a vehicle, they may "search" that container, but the "search" may not extend to other parts of the car.
2) Contemporaneousness Not Required
If the police are "justified" in making a warrant less "search" of a vehicle under the exception at the time of stopping, they may tow the vehicle to the station and "search" it later.
Words in quotes (" ") needs to be followed up with the definition pertaining to.
I'm talking about the 4th Amendment.
Automobile Exception.
If the police have "probable cause" to believe that a vehicle such as an automobile contains, "contraband", "instrumentalities", or "evidence" of a crime, they may "search" the vehicle without a warrant.
Rationale.....Automobiles are mobile and so will not likely be available for search by the time an officer returns with a warrant.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has declared that people have a lesser expectation of "privacy" in their vehicles than their homes.
Note: If the police have "probable cause" to believe that the car itself is "contraband", it may be seized from a public place without a warrant.
1) Scope of Search
If the police have full "probable cause" to "search" a vehicle, they can “search” the entire vehicle (including the trunk) and all containers within the vehicle that might contain the object(s) for which they are searching. Thus, if the police have "probable cause" to believe that drugs are within the vehicle, they can search almost any container, but if they have "probable cause" to believe that an illegal alien is hiding inside the vehicle, they must limit their search to areas where a person could hide.
a) Passenger's Belongings
The "search" is not limited to the driver's belongings and may extend to packages belonging to a passenger. Like a driver, a passenger has a reduced expectation of privacy in a car.
b) Limited Probable Cause
If the police only have "probable cause" to "search" a container (recently) placed in a vehicle, they may "search" that container, but the "search" may not extend to other parts of the car.
2) Contemporaneousness Not Required
If the police are "justified" in making a warrant less "search" of a vehicle under the exception at the time of stopping, they may tow the vehicle to the station and "search" it later.
1911 guy
Member
Legally or practically?
Legally, anything an officer notices that leads him/her to believe that you are engaged in or have committed an illegal act. The officer must be able to articulate this to a judge.
Practically, anything an officer can get a judge to buy.
In my limited experience with the law (pretty much speeding tickets), they don't want to waste your time or their time. I was speeding, they wrote me a ticket and told me to cool it on the skinny pedal. However, a hotshot could make your day miserable if they wanted to. This kind of "Probable cause" will not be limited by the same niceties as a legal search because, well, it isn't.
Legally, anything an officer notices that leads him/her to believe that you are engaged in or have committed an illegal act. The officer must be able to articulate this to a judge.
Practically, anything an officer can get a judge to buy.
In my limited experience with the law (pretty much speeding tickets), they don't want to waste your time or their time. I was speeding, they wrote me a ticket and told me to cool it on the skinny pedal. However, a hotshot could make your day miserable if they wanted to. This kind of "Probable cause" will not be limited by the same niceties as a legal search because, well, it isn't.
Sadly, PC has come to be whatever line the authorities can convince a judge of months after the fact, after they have had time to concoct a good scenario for what they did.
Like most other things, it comes down to the honesty and integrity of the individual, in this case the officer. Chances are they can get just about anything past a judge these days. But, most of the time there will be an attempt to follow the rules. But, you have no way of knowing whether the guy that pulled you over is going to follow the rules or not.
Chances are slim that you will get any relief in court after the fact, and you certainly do not want to bet your freedom on it.
Like most other things, it comes down to the honesty and integrity of the individual, in this case the officer. Chances are they can get just about anything past a judge these days. But, most of the time there will be an attempt to follow the rules. But, you have no way of knowing whether the guy that pulled you over is going to follow the rules or not.
Chances are slim that you will get any relief in court after the fact, and you certainly do not want to bet your freedom on it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked