Probable cause searches in vehicles....

[lemaymiami]

Thanks to all for their responses (and I'll just bet there were many who wanted to chime in since on the street "rules" get a bit flexible..).

Here's a real life case from the seventies - that I lost in court based on the search... I observed a young man in a convenience store at night from my patrol car. In the fashion at that time he was carrying a "man's purse" one of those small leather bags that some carried.. As I watched he abruptly ran from the store, jumped in his car and went tearing down the road... Looked like a possible robbery or attempted robbery so I caught up to him and did a vehicle stop... Before approaching I'd requested someone go by the store and find out whether a crime had occurred there. When I approached his car (this was in the "bad old days" when we were not very safety conscious...) and asked for his driver's license he opened that purse and I could clearly see that it contained a double edged dagger - clearly an illegal weapon - if carried concealed... When the store was checked it was found that no crime had occurred (except for the concealed weapon the young man had with him when he was inside the store...) so I still placed him in custody for the concealed weapon (only a misdemeanor charge here in Florida) - and it all went to court about two or three months later...

When it came in front of the judge the defense attorney moved to suppress the dagger based on lack of probable cause to stop or to search... even though no search had occurred.... In that era the courts were bending over backward to protect everyone's rights and of course my case was tossed...

Some years later my young officers doing very similar pro-active policing took cases like this to court and got convictions.... So, as I mentioned before rulings evolve over time from one end of the spectrum to the other... at least that was my direct observation over a twenty two year span... Lord only knows where we're headed today on this sort of stuff....

 

[Rule3]

Keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant in order to search, nor does it require "Probable Cause" for a search (although it does require "Probable Cause" for a search warrant to be issued). All the Fourth Amendment requires is that searches be reasonable. There is a large body of case law holding that regulatory searches are lawful, so long as they are reasonable. That's the basis for a lot a Fish and Game related searches, and for searches of boats and commercial vehicles.

You're mistaken as to the authority to conduct an unrestricted search based on a "Safety Check." Such regulatory searches are limited in scope to the purpose of the search. I served as a Coast Guard officer during the early days of the "War on Drugs." A lot of our enforcement efforts were based on random boardings, with the expectation that illegal drugs would be found consistent with existing search authorities. One of those authorities permitted the regulatory search of any U.S. vessel outside of the territorial waters of another nation, and of all vessels within U.S. territorial waters for compliance with U.S. law. That gave access to the vessel's engine room, cargo holds, navigation equipment and such. But there was no authority to search the captain's underwear drawer (the captain's choice of underwear being unregulated by U.S. law). But if that limited search provided "Probable Cause" to believe that there was something illegal in that drawer, then it could be searched for. At the same time, if there was evidence that the vessel crossed an international border (like the 12 mile limit), then the entire vessel became subject to a customs law (virtually unrestricted) search.

As you state "reasonable" which can be construed to mean anything the officer says so. whose word is the Judge going to take and all the effort required to get to court over it.?

Come on down to the Florida Keys during the Sportsman's weekend for when Lobster season opens. Be out on the water and be part of the searches by every know LE agency known to man,. Then trailer your boat off the islands by the only road and be randomly stopped and searched pretty much like DUI checkpoints.Then let us know.

Suspected drug smuggling boats out on open water can be search, holes drilled and boats tore apart, if nothing found to bad so sad, you cant sue and insurance will not pay for reimbursements. Yes, there are cases from Boat USA

 

[Dibbs]

I never put anything on my vehicle of any sort, less because I fear an unwarranted search but more because I don't want to invite some nut job to become irrational because it's something they disagree with. We live in that kind of world now.

The issue which I find a concern is theft. Sure LE can always say "I saw a needle." "I smelled weed." But, if they see a sticker, a criminal doesn't need probable cause, to smash
that (BTW 200$ + window) window, and do an illegal search, for firearms.

 

[lemaymiami]

Long long ago the City of Miami had cause to warn all of their officers (not me... I worked for a town a few miles north of Miami..) to remove any police related decals, emblems, or anything else that might identify their personal vehicles as officer owned... Seems that locals were hitting them to get firearms and other police type gear... This was back before most agencies issued vests and officers were forced to buy their own. This was also a time that there was a lot of police impersonators (cocaine cowboy era) so even uniforms were stolen...

Fast forward to now - and every time I see someone with a firearms related decal(s) on their car (or a second amendment related sign) I just shake my head... Y’all ought to be a bit more cautious in my world...

 

[Steve in PA]

Well, I have 21 years in LE and never based a search on a sticker.

I have a few stickers on my POV.......USMC, NRA and maybe a hunting sticker. No LE stickers. Someone wants to try and search my POV based on one of those stickers better have their crap wired and be ready to prove their need for the search and yeah....nice letter from my lawyer!

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Don't I know it! And this is something that I just never understood how any judge in the land could go along with it.

Im not much of a fisherman, and I dont hunt large game. Mostly quail, sometimes hog, but if i am hunting hog, its at a hunters ranch and they prep my hog. so no game warden issue.

As far as quail goes, i prep my birds quite quickly back at camp and into the fridge they go. In Texas you can find quail at the local grocery store fresh or otherwise. So its hard to tell if they were hunted or not.

However we have decent bag limits, so for most its never an issue unless ur hinting out of season.

Also in Texas a game warden cant enter your land to check for hunting violations unless they physically see you hunting, or someone has reported you. Example, if your hunting near the property border and its near the road.

Where i hunt quail is on a 4000 acre ranch, so most of it is no where near any public roads!!!

But yes here in Texas seems game wardens have a larger leeway then regular cops.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

But yes here in Texas seems game wardens have a larger leeway then regular cops.

I think it's that way in every state, but I don't understand the legality of it. Why is a wildlife crime more important, or more dangerous to society, than any other crime-so much so that the courts allow the government to suspend and violate your 4th amendment rights?

For example, if an officer suspected that you were planning a mass casualty attack on your way to the mall (based on your NRA sticker, of course), he would need genuine probable cause (or at least a pretense of probable cause) and/or a warrant to search your car. But if an officer suspected that you had harvested one too many fish, he can strip search your car trying to prove it without probable cause or a warrant. It is completely illogical.

 

[RickD427]

I think it's that way in every state, but I don't understand the legality of it. Why is a wildlife crime more important, or more dangerous to society, than any other crime-so much so that the courts allow the government to suspend and violate your 4th amendment rights?

For example, if an officer suspected that you were planning a mass casualty attack on your way to the mall (based on your NRA sticker, of course), he would need genuine probable cause (or at least a pretense of probable cause) and/or a warrant to search your car. But if an officer suspected that you had harvested one too many fish, he can strip search your car trying to prove it without probable cause or a warrant. It is completely illogical.

There's nothing in here where the government "suspend(s) or violates(s) your 4th Amendment rights." Please keep in mind that, under the Constitution, it's the courts, and not individual private persons that are the arbiter of its provisions. Your post questions why a person engaging in a government regulated activity (like fishing) is subject to a greater amount of government intrusion than one who engages in unregulated activity (like displaying an NRA sticker). Please see the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York v Burger for an explanation of the difference. The simple bottom line is that because the added intrusion meets the constitutional requirement of "Reasonableness", it complies with the Fourth Amendment.

I'd also question the accuracy of your example "if an officer suspected that you were planning a mass casualty attack on your way to the mall (based on your NRA sticker, of course), he would need genuine probable cause (or at least a pretense of probable cause) and/or a warrant to search your car." There's no case law that I'm aware of supporting the proposition that an NRA sticker, displayed alone, provides PC that there is any illegal activity. If you can cite such an authority, please do so. Otherwise, I have to think that you're making up the example that you're using to prove your point. But even if we run with that imaginative example, and we consider the effect of the Ross case previously discussed, why would an officer need a search warrant? (It may be wise for reasons discussed in my prior posting, but certainly is not required)

I'll agree that the effect of a great many laws defies "logic", but then there is no requirement that individual laws pass a "logic" requirement. It's only necessary that they pass a political test to be enacted, and a constitutional one to survive.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I think it's that way in every state, but I don't understand the legality of it. Why is a wildlife crime more important, or more dangerous to society, than any other crime-so much so that the courts allow the government to suspend and violate your 4th amendment rights?

For example, if an officer suspected that you were planning a mass casualty attack on your way to the mall (based on your NRA sticker, of course), he would need genuine probable cause (or at least a pretense of probable cause) and/or a warrant to search your car. But if an officer suspected that you had harvested one too many fish, he can strip search your car trying to prove it without probable cause or a warrant. It is completely illogical.

I couldnt agree more.

Its probably due to the fact that most people the GW writes a ticket for or arrests cant afford fighting it in the courts. The aclu and other orginzations wont pick up the cost and help fight it because they dont view it as a cause worthy enough to fight.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

There's nothing in here where the government "suspend(s) or violates(s) your 4th Amendment rights." Please keep in mind that, under the Constitution, it's the courts, and not individual private persons that are the arbiter of its provisions. Your post questions why a person engaging in a government regulated activity (like fishing) is subject to a greater amount of government intrusion than one who engages in unregulated activity (like displaying an NRA sticker). Please see the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York v Burger for an explanation of the difference. The simple bottom line is that because the added intrusion meets the constitutional requirement of "Reasonableness", it complies with the Fourth Amendment.

I'd also question the accuracy of your example "if an officer suspected that you were planning a mass casualty attack on your way to the mall (based on your NRA sticker, of course), he would need genuine probable cause (or at least a pretense of probable cause) and/or a warrant to search your car." There's no case law that I'm aware of supporting the proposition that an NRA sticker, displayed alone, provides PC that there is any illegal activity. If you can cite such an authority, please do so. Otherwise, I have to think that you're making up the example that you're using to prove your point. But even if we run with that imaginative example, and we consider the effect of the Ross case previously discussed, why would an officer need a search warrant? (It may be wise for reasons discussed in my prior posting, but certainly is not required)

I'll agree that the effect of a great many laws defies "logic", but then there is no requirement that individual laws pass a "logic" requirement. It's only necessary that they pass a political test to be enacted, and a constitutional one to survive.

Okay. You raise some good arguments that I can accept. Fishing/Hunting is a government regulated activity. The government regulates all sorts of daily activities (driving for example), but they can't pull motorists over at random and search their vehicles.

If I'm driving home from a camping trip, a game warden shouldn't be able to search my vehicle because I have an ice chest in the car. I feel like there should be some reason, other than the mere fact that I am participating in an activity (fishing), to presume that I have violated the law and subsequently search my vehicle.

Admittedly, absent that blank check authority to search anyone, anywhere, anytime, game wardens would be virtually incapable of enforcing the wildlife laws. However, that supports my argument. If one applied that notion to all crimes, one could say that the 4th amendment diminishes the effectiveness of all law enforcement, thereby making us less safe and thereby justifying the suspension of the 4th amendment. Again, why are fishing violations so important that they get a pass from the courts?

And BTW, yes, I totally made up the "NRA sticker" as probable cause while driving because I felt it was as ludicrous as having an ice chest as probable cause that a person had committed a wildlife infraction.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

It occurs to me that we should probably walk away from this as it's not really THR material; we're probably walking a fine line on the edge of being shut down.

 

[RickD427]

Okay. You raise some good arguments that I can accept. Fishing/Hunting is a government regulated activity. The government regulates all sorts of daily activities (driving for example), but they can't pull motorists over at random and search their vehicles.

If I'm driving home from a camping trip, a game warden shouldn't be able to search my vehicle because I have an ice chest in the car. I feel like there should be some reason, other than the mere fact that I am participating in an activity (fishing), to presume that I have violated the law and subsequently search my vehicle.

Admittedly, absent that blank check authority to search anyone, anywhere, anytime, game wardens would be virtually incapable of enforcing the wildlife laws. However, that supports my argument. If one applied that notion to all crimes, one could say that the 4th amendment diminishes the effectiveness of all law enforcement, thereby making us less safe and thereby justifying the suspension of the 4th amendment. Again, why are fishing violations so important that they get a pass from the courts?

And BTW, yes, I totally made up the "NRA sticker" as probable cause while driving because I felt it was as ludicrous as having an ice chest as probable cause that a person had committed a wildlife infraction.

It occurs to me that we should probably walk away from this as it's not really THR material; we're probably walking a fine line on the edge of being shut down.

There's some good educational stuff in here for folks who would like to know more about how the law affects them. So long as the discussions remain respectful, I hope that the mods will see the value.

One of the key points to the "Government Regulated Activity" search authority is that any searches must be reasonable. The difference between these searches, and the "Probable Cause to Believe a Crime is Being Committed" searches is the need to enforce the regulations governing the activity. The Game Warden gets a lot of latitude to look for illegal game, but he doesn't get a blank check. The search activity has to be related to game. But at the same time, where do folks usually keep their catch - in a cooler. But if the Game Warden wanted to check the files on your laptop computer, it would be a different story.

I own a small powerboat (a 29' Blackfin) that was designed for fishing. But I don't fish (three years of doing fisheries enforcement in Alaska killed my taste for it). I use the boat for cruising and for diving. When the DNR officers come alongside to conduct their regulatory inspection, I always welcome them aboard, and offer some coffee, but also am quick to explain that there ain't no fishing gear of any kind on board the boat. I know that LEOs get lied to on rare occasions, but once they realize there ain't no fishing gear on the boat, their first objective is to leave and find a boat that does have some fishing gear on it.

I'm pretty firm in the belief that a "NRA" sticker, or other indicia of firearms affinity does not, standing alone, provide "Probable Cause" to belief there is criminal activity. Although the courts define "PC" as there being a "Fair Probability" that there is criminal activity, I like to look at the root meaning of "Probable", meaning that something is more likely than not. If we picked out 10 cars at random that had an "NRA" sticker on them, do you think that at least five of them would have illegal firearms aboard?

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I'm pretty firm in the belief that a "NRA" sticker, or other indicia of firearms affinity does not, standing alone, provide "Probable Cause" to belief there is criminal activity. Although the courts define "PC" as there being a "Fair Probability" that there is criminal activity, I like to look at the root meaning of "Probable", meaning that something is more likely than not. If we picked out 10 cars at random that had an "NRA" sticker on them, do you think that at least five of them would have illegal firearms aboard?

I too don’t have any fishing equipment on board my boat either for the same reason. I also don’t keep a rifle or shotgun on board either. I will carry a couple of handguns but that’s it.

In the more swamp lands near Houston, where there are gators, I make sure I am off the water before dark. Game wardens in that area catch a lot of illegal gator poachers at night and most will shoot a gator with a handgun. Here to hunt gators you need a license and a tag. Which are hard to come by during the short hunting season. It even takes a license to farm gators and those farms are closely monitored as well.

Per your last question, I don’t think you would. Then again it depends on what area you pull those 5 vehicles and the demographics. However, gang members are highly unlikely to be NRA members or put those kind of stickers or similar on their cars either.