Supreme
Court
Strikes
Down
Car
Search
Law
12/11/98
The Supreme Court this week unanimously declared a whole category of police searching unconstitutional, a rare outcome for a court that has been seen as an automatic rubberstamp for police conduct, especially as that conduct relates to drug law enforcement. This week's decision reversed the Iowa Supreme Court and threw out a marijuana conviction when it held that a car may not be searched merely based upon the issuance of a speeding ticket or other traffic citation. Patrick Knowles was stopped for going 43 in a 25-mile-an-hour zone, and the officer issued a citation in lieu of arrest (which is permitted in Iowa for minor offenses). The officer then searched Mr. Knowles's passenger compartment, and found marijuana and a pipe. The Supreme Court earlier had approved a practice known as "search incident to arrest," whereby officers may search a car fully if an arrest is made. In Knowles, the Court said unequivocally that the search incident to arrest doctrine does not extend to situations when an arrest is not actually made. The Court's opinion centered on the fact that there are two justifications for the search incident doctrine -- danger to the police, and preservation of evidence -- neither of which is present during a traffic stop to the extent that they outweigh the 4th Amendment concern. In an earlier case, Whren v. United States, the Court had held that officers' decisions to stop cars for traffic violations were not subject to scrutiny as to the actual motivations as long as there was probable cause as to traffic violations. Thus, the Court here was not concerned with whether there was a pretext in the Knowles stop of looking for drugs. Though the issue was not raised here, it is important to note that many rights violations do occur in the service of drug enforcement. A good number of the landmark 4th Amendment cases have included drug searches and seizures. "Police are always looking for drugs, that's primarily the area where they make warrantless searches," says Paul Rosenberg of Des Moines, the attorney for Knowles. Adds Brooklyn Law School professor Susan N. Herman, who filed an amicus curiae brief in the case on behalf of the ACLU, often police who stop vehicles are "not highly concerned with the traffic. In Whren, they weren't even empowered to enforce traffic laws, they were vice squad!" While a line of previous decisions have broadened the powers of officers in connection with car stops, the Knowles case can be hailed as something of a victory for 4th Amendment protections. Given that on the order of "50 million people a year are cited for traffic violations, there's a huge potential for abuse. I think everybody can be very happy this opinion came down," notes Rosenberg. This case does put a stop to a practice that some, such as Rosenberg, argue was becoming more prevalent. "This was just a new monster that was lurking," he says. "The Supreme Court basically slammed the door." But while Knowles is a clear indication that the Court will not abide conduct that goes too far over the line, the opinion does not represent a marked shift in 4th Amendment jurisprudence, or in police behavior, warns professor Herman. For one thing, police can circumvent the prohibition by deciding to arrest the suspect, and then declining to follow through with the arrest if no contraband is discovered during the ensuing search. Herman calls that tactic "arrest incident to search." Despite her contention that the Knowles opinion is not a robust pronouncement of 4th Amendment values, Herman credits the opinion for what it does do, which is prevent the police from having "incredibly broad discretion to search any car" -- discretion, she says, that "we do see...is exercised in an arbitrary... manner." The Iowa Attorney General's office calls the practice of search incident to citation "rarely used" and acknowledges the Supreme Court's exhortation to police to use "other procedures [that are] available if they are concerned for their safety," such as ordering the occupants of a car to disembark. Meanwhile, attorney Rosenberg suggests that the real area in which police need to look for other procedures is in enforcing drug laws. "Officers have plenty of tools to deal with drug laws without resorting to this," he points out.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
